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 Balloch v. Bank of Bengal v. Fagan, 5 Moore Indian Appeals 40 (1849), distinguished 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). Banque du Peuple v. Ethier, 1 R. L. 47 (1869). Contra, section 8, s-s. 5. 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, 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). 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). Contra, section 9 (d). 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 Ú. 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. Girvin v. Burke, 19 O. R. 204 (1890). Contra, section 30, s-s. 4. Graham, Er parte, 5 De G. M. & G. 356 (1856), overruled by Oriental Grant v. Young, 23 U. C. Q. B. 307 (1860). Contra, section 9 (4). 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). |