CASES OVERRULED, QUESTIONED

OR DISTINGUISHED.

Where a case is in whole or in part in conflict with a provision of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1890, the section of the Act alone is given, even when the case may have been previously overruled or overridden by legislation prior to the Act.

Allen v. Kemble, 6 Moore P. C. 314 (1848), qualified in Rouquette v. Overmann, L. R. 10 Q. B. 540 (1875).

Armfield_v. Allport, 27 L. J. Ex. 42 (1857), distinguished in McCall v. Taylor, 19 C. B. N. S. 301 (1865).

Arthur v. Clarkson, 35 Beav. 458 (1865), disapproved in Re Whitaker, 42 Ch. D. at p. 125 (1889).

Bacon v. Searles, 1 H. Bl. 88 (1788), overruled by Jones v. Broadhurst, 9 C. B. at p. 185 (1850).

Balloch v. Binney, 5 N. B. (3 Kerr) 440 (1847). Contra, section 49, s-s. 5. Banbury v. Lisset, 2 Stra. 1211 (1774), overruled by Griffin v. Weatherby, L. R. 3 Q. B. at p. 759 (1868).

Bank of Bengal v. Fagan, 5 Moore Indian Appeals 40 (1849), distinguished in Jonmenjoy v. Watson, 9 App. Cas. at p. 568 (1884). Bank of Bengal v. Macleod, 7 Moore P. C. 35 (1849), distinguished in Jonmenjoy v. Watson, 9 App. Cas. at p. 567 (1884).

Bank of Michigan v. Gray, 1 U. C. Q. B. 422 (1841). Contra, section 49 (j). Bank of Montreal v. Langlois, 3 Rev. de Leg. 88 (1847). Contra, section

32 (a).

Bank of U. C. v. Parsons, 3 U. C. Q. B. 383 (1847). Contra, section 45 (d) (1).

S-8. 5.

Banque du Peuple v. Ethier, 1 R. L. 47 (1869). Contra, section
Bartrum v. Caddy, 9 A. & E. 275 (1838), distinguished in Glasscock v.
Balls, 24 Q. B. D. 13 (1889).

Baxter v. Bruneau, 17 R. L. 360 (1889). Contra, section 29, s-s. 3.
Bell v. Moffat, 20 N. B. (4 P. & B.) 121 (1880). Contra, sections

23 and 56.

Berton v. Central Bank, 10 N. B. (5 Allen) 493 (1863). Contra, section 17, s-s. 2.

Bettis v. Weller, 30 U. C. Q. B. 23 (1870), overruled by Third Nat. Bank v. Cosby, 43 U. C. Q. B. 69 (1878).

Bickerdike v. Bollman, 1 T. R. 405 (1786), criticised in Carter v. Flower, 16 M. & W. at p. 748 (1847).

Bloxam, Er parte, 6 Ves. 449 (1801), doubted in Re Gomersall, 1 Ch. D. 137 (1875), and overruled in Ex parte Newton, 16 Ch. D. 336 (1880)

Boulton v. Welsh, 3 Bing. N. C. 688 (1837), overruled in Lewis v. Gompertz, 6 M. & W. at p. 403 (1840).

Brown v. Davies, 3 T. R. 80, (1789), overruled in Ex parte Swan, L. R. 6

Eq. 358 (1868).

Brunet v Lalonde, 16 L. C. R. 347 (1866). Contra, Marc Aurele v. Durocher. 5 R. L. 165 (1873).

Brown v. Philpot, 2 M. & Rob. 285 (1840), overruled by Smith v. Braine, 16 Q. B. at p. 254 (1851).

Callaghan v. Aylett, 2 Camp. 519 (1810), overruled by Fenton v. Goundry, 13 East, 459 (1811).

Camidge v. Allenby, 6 B. & C. 373 (1827), distinguished in Leeds Bank v. Walker, 11 Q. B. D. at p. 88 (1883). Canadian Investment Co. v. Brown, 19 R. L. 364 (1890), Contra, section 63, s-s. 2.

Castrique v. Buttegieg, 10 Moore P. C. 94 (1855), explained in Abrey v. Crux, L. R. 5 C. P. 42 (1869).

Contra, section 9 (d).

Catton v. Simpson, 8 A. & E. 136 (1838), overruled in Aldous v. Cornwell, L. R. 3 Q. B. at p. 587 (1868). Cazet v. Kirk, 9 N. B. (4 Allen) 543 (1860). Coles v. Bank of England, 10 A. & E. 437 (1839), questioned in Baxendale v. Bennett, 3 Q. B. D. at p. 534 (1878). Commercial Bank v. Johnston, 2 U. C. Q. B. 126 (1846). Contra, section

45 (d) (1).

Coutu v. Rafferty, M. L. R. 7 S. C. 148 (1891). Contra, section 56. Cowie v. Stirling, 6 E. & B. 333 (1856). Contra, section 7, s-s. 2. Crevier v. Sauriole, 6 L. C. J. 257 (1862), overruled. See p. 346. Crouch v. Credit Foncier, L. R. 8 Q. B. 374 (1873), explained and qualified in Goodwin v. Robarts, L. R. 10 Ex. 355 (1875), and 1 App. Cas. at p. 494 (1876); discussed in London & County Bank v. River Plate Bank, 20 Q. B. D. p. 240 (1887).

De Berdt v. Atkinson, 2 H. Bl. 336 (1794), overruled by Maltass v. Siddle, 6 C. B. N. S. 494 (1859).

De Chantal v. Pominville, 6 L. C. J. 88 (1860), overruled. See Cleroux v. Pigeon, 32 L. C. J. 236 (1888).

Delaney v. Hall, 3 N. S. (2 Thom.) 401 (1858). Contra, section 49 (e).
Dingwall v. Dunster, 1 Dougl. 247 (1779). Contra, section 61.
Down v. Halling, 4 B. & C. 330 (1825), dissented from in Bank of Bengal
v. Macleod, 5 Moore, Indian Appeals, 1 (1849); distinguished in
London & County Bank v. Groome, 8 Q. B. D. 288 (1881).
Dupuis v. Marsan, 17 L. C. J. 42 (1872). Contra, section 31, s-s. 4.

Exchange Bank v. Quebec Bank, M. L. R. 6 S. C. 10 (1890). Contra, section 36.

Fahnestock v. Palmer, 20 U. C. Q. B. 307 (1860). Contra, section 9 (d). Fisken v. Meehan, 40 U. C. Q. B. 146 (1876), overruled by Macdonald v. Whitfield, 8 App. Cas. 733 (1883).

Foster v. Dawber, 6 Ex. 851 (1851).

Contra, section 61.

Frith v. Forbes, 4 De G. F. & J. 409 (1863), explained in Ex parte Arbuthnot, 3 Ch. D. 480 (1876), and overruled in Brown v. Kough, 29 Ch. D. 848 (1884).

Fyfe v. Boyce, 21 R. L. 4 (1891). Contra, section 56.

Gill v. Cubitt, 3 B. & C. 466 (1824), dissented from in Bank of Bengal v.
Macleod, 5 Moore, Indian Appeals, 1 (1849); held overruled in
London & County Bank v. Groome, 8 Q. B. D. 288 (1881).
Girvin v. Burke, 19 O. R. 204 (1890). Contra, section 30, s-s. 4.
Goodwin v. Robarts, 10 Ex. 337 (1875), and 1 App. Cas. 476 (1876), dis-

tinguished in London & County Bank v. River Plate Bank, 20
Q. B. D. 241 (1887); criticised in Easton v. London Joint Stock
Bank, 34 Ch. D. 95 (1886); discussed v. London Joint Stock
Bank, 13 App. Cas. at p. 342 (1888).

Graham, Ex parte, 5 De G. M. & G. 356 (1856), overruled by Oriental
Corporation v. Overend, L. R. 7 Ch. at p. 152 (1871).
Grant v. Young, 23 U. C. Q. B. 307 (1860). Contra, section 9 ().

Hall v. Smith, 1 B. & C. 407, (1823), overruled by Ex parte Buckley, 14 M. & W. 469 (1845).

Hansard v. Robinson, 7 B. & C. 90 (1827), not followed in Wright v. Lord Maidstone, 1 K. & J. 401 (1855).

Harris v. Benson, 2 Str. 910 (1713), overruled by Lumley v. Palmer, 2 Str. 1,000 (1734); Windle v. Andrews, 2 B. & A. 699, 700 (1819). Harvey v. Cane, 34 L. T. N. S. 74 (1876), questioned in Hogarth v. Latham, 3 Q. B. D. 651 (1878).

Harvey v. Bank of Hamilton, 16 S. C. Can. 714 (1889). Contra, section

8, s-s. 4.

Heath v. Sansom, 2 B. & Ad. 291 (1831), questioned in Smith v. Braine, 16 Q. B. 244 (1851).

Hindhaugh v. Blakey, 3 C. P. D. 136 (1878), overruled by Steele v. McKinlay, 5 App. Cas. 783, 785 (1880), and see section 17 (2) of the Act.

Howland v. Jennings, 11 U. C. C. P. 272 (1861), overruled by St. John v. Rykert, 10 S. C. Can. 278 (1884).

Ianson v. Paxton, 23 U. C. C. P. 439 (1874), overruled by Macdonald v. Whitfield, 8 App. Cas. 733 (1883).

Ingham v. Primrose, 7 C. B. N. S. 82 (1859), dissented from in Baxendale v. Bennett, 3 Q. B. D. 532 (1878).

Jenks v. Doran, 5 Ont. A. R. 558 (1880). Contra, section 21, s-s. 2 (d). Jones v. Broadhurst, 9 C. B. 173 (1850), qualified in Cook v. Lister, 13 C. B. N. S. 597 (1863); discussed in Thornton v. Maynard, L. R. 10 C. P. 698 (1875); questioned in Soloman v. Davis, 1 C. & E. 83 (1883).

Jones v. Goudie, 2 Rev. de Leg. 334 (1820). Contra, section 17, s-s. 2.
Jones v. Hart, 2 Rev. de Leg. 29 (1819), overruled. See p. 40.
Jones v. Lane, 3 Y. & C. 281 (1839), overruled by Deuters v. Townsend,

5 B. & S. 613 (1864).

Jones v. Whitty, 9 L. C. R. 191 (1859). Contra, section 8, s-s. 4.

Keates v. Whieldon, 8 B. & C. 7 (1828), overruled by Cheetham v. Butler, 5 B. & Ad. 837 (1833).

Keene v. Beard, 8 C. B. N. S. 372 (1860), qualified in Hopkinson v. Forster, L. R. 19 Eq. 76 (1874).

Kirk v. Blurton, 9 M. & W. 284 (1841), questioned in Forbes v. Marshall, 11 Ex. at p. 180 (1855); distinguished in Odell v. Cormack, 19 Q. B. D. 223 (1887).

Lagueux v. Casault, 2 Rev. de Leg. 28 (1813), overruled. See p. 40.
Lagueux v. Everett, 1 Rev. de Leg. 510 (1817). Contra, section 17, s-s. 2.
Lambert, Ex parte, 13 Ves. 179 (1794), overruled in Ex parte Swan,
L. R. 6 Eq. 358 (1868).

Latour v. Gauthier, 2 L. C. L. J. 149 (1866). Contra, section 56.
Lloyd v. Chune, 2 Giffard, 441 (1860), criticised in Re Whitaker, 42 Ch.
D. 125 (1889).

Marler v. Molsons Bank, 23 L. C. J. 293 (1879). Contra, sections 53 and 72.

Massue v. Crebassa, 7 L. C. J. 211 (1863), overruled.
McCorkill v. Barrabe, M. L. R. 1 S. C. 319 (1885).

s-s. 4.

McDonnell v. Holgate, 2 Rev. de Leg. 29 (1821). See p. 42. McPhee v. McPhee, 19 O. R 603 (1890), overruled by Robertson v. Lonsdale, 22 O. R. (1892).

Merchants' Bank v. Spinney, 13 N. S. (1 R. & G.) 87 (1879). Contra, section 51, s-s. 7.

Merchants' Bank v. Stirling, 13 N. S. (1 R. & G.) 439 (1880). Contra, section 63, s-s. 2.

See p. 358.

Contra, section 8,

Merritt v. Maxwell, 14 U. C. Q. B. 50 (1886). Contra, section 90, s-s. 2. Mertens v. Winnington, 1 Esp. 113 (1794), doubted in Ex parte Wyld, 2 De G. F. & J. 650 (1860).

Montgomery v. Boucher, 14 U. C. C. P. 45, (1964), overruled by St. John v. Rykert, 10 S. C. Can. 278 (1881). Musgrave v. Drake, 5 Q. B. 185 (1843), dissented from in Hogg v. Skeen, 18 C. B. N. S. at p. 426 (1865).

Napier v. Schneider, 12 East, 420 (1810), held overruled in Re Genera
South American Co., 7 Ch. D. 644 (1877).
Narbonne v. Letreau, L. C. J. 80 (1863). Contra, section 56.
Nash v. Gibbon, 9 N. B. (4 Allen) 479 (1860). Contra, section 9 (d).