and without notice that his title to the bill is defective: sec. § 74 139. If a bill be made payable to bearer or endorsed in Payment blank, the person in possession may be presumed to be en- of bill. titled to receive payment in due course, and payment to him is valid if made in good faith, although he may be a thief, finder, or fraudulent holder: Byles, p. 296; Randolph, § 1444. In order to vitiate the payment by the maker of a promissory note indorsed in blank, bad faith must be shewn; payment under circumstances of suspicion is not enough. The maker is only bound to assure himself of the genuineness of the signatures, and is not bound to make any enquiry: Ferrie v. Wardens of the House of Industry, 1 Rev. de Lég. 27 (1845); Johnson v. Way, 27 Ohio St. 374 (1875). TRANSFER AND TRANSMISsion of BillS BY THE OPERATION Sections 60 to 74 inclusive treat only of the negotiation and transfer of bills by the operation of the Act and the provisions of the law merchant. They are also like other personal property subject to transfer and transmission by the operation of provincial law in so far as these are not in conflict with the Act. In so far as there is a conflict the Dominion law must prevail: Tennant v. Union Bank [1894] A. C. 31; Compagnie Hydraulique v. Continental Heat and Power Co. P. C. Oct. 14th, 1908. Some of the principal modes of such transfer or transmission are the following: 1. By Will. Where a testator is the holder or owner of a bill, it passes to the executor unless there be some provision in the provincial law or in the will to the contrary. His power to indorse and deliver a bill payable to order or his right to dispose of and deliver a bill payable to bearer is subject to the like limitations: Bishop v. Curtis, 18 Q. B. 391 (1852); C. C. Art. 919. 2. By Death and Intestacy.-Where an intestate dies. leaving bills in such condition they pass to the administrator of his personal estate in those provinces where such appointments are made, and in the province of Quebec to the heirs, § 74 who have such powers respectively regarding them as the provincial law may give. 3. By Insolvency.-As there is no Dominion Insolvent Act, the provisions of the various provincial acts regulating the assignment and transfer of the estates of insolvent debtors will govern. If such an estate includes a bill payable to order which the debtor does not endorse, the assignee, trustee, or curator, as the case may be, acquires such rights as the provincial law may confer as to choses in action, debts, or rights of action. 4. By Assignment or Sale.-Such a transfer of a bill payable to order gives the assignee or purchaser such rights as are mentioned in the last paragraph. 5. By Seizure, Sale, etc.-If a sheriff seizes and sells such a note or it is sold by order of the Court, licitation or analogous proceeding, the purchaser acquires such rights as the provincial law may confer upon the sale of such property. 6. Donatio Mortis Causa.-A bill may be the subject of a valid donatio mortis causa. If payable to bearer the donee acquires a title under the Act; if payable to order he becomes the owner of the bill according to the provincial law, but not the holder under the Act. The whole of the foregoing may also be subject to modification in all the provinces, and to some extent even in the province of Quebec, by the provisions of section 10 of this Act, which applies the rules of the common law of England to bills. When necessary. Presentment for Acceptance. 75. Where a bill is payable at sight or after sight, presentment for acceptance is necessary in order to fix the maturity of the instrument. V., c. 33, s. 39 (1). Imp. Act, ibid. 53 This sub-section in the Imperial Act reads, “Where a bill is payable after sight," etc. The words "at sight or" were inserted in the bill in the Canadian House of Commons after it had been determined not to change our law which § 75 allowed grace on bills payable at sight, and they had been Bills paystruck out of section 10, where they stood as one of the able at or after sight. classes of bills payable on demand. In England a sight bill is payable on demand, so that it need not be presented for acceptance. Such is also the law in those States which have adopted the Negotiable Instruments Law, which has abolished days of grace, § 240. runs. The acceptance of a bill payable at or after sight should be dated, so that it may be known from what day the time A sight bill is payable on the third day after acceptance, one payable after sight on the third day after the expiration of the time mentioned in the bill. See sections, 44, 45, and 77. The sub-section as it stands is in accordance with the law of England before the passage of the Act of 1871; Campbell v. French, 6 T. R. at p. 212 (1795); Holmes▸ v. Kerrison, 2 Taunt. 323 (1810); Sturdy v. Henderson, 4 B. & Ald. 592 (1821). present A bill should be presented for acceptance to the drawee, Mode of personally, or at his place of business or residence; or to his ment. authorized agent. If it is addressed to him at a particular place, it may be treated as dishonoured if he has absconded: Anon. 1 Ld. Raym. 743 (1701); but if he has merely changed his residence or place of business, or if the bill is not addressed to him at a particular place, it is incumbent on the holder to use due diligence to find him. And due diligence in such a case is a question of fact: Collins v. Butler, 2 Stra. 1087 (1729); Bateman v. Joseph, 12 East, 433 (1810). It is not enough to present it to some person in the drawee's yard, without knowing who that person is: Cheek v. Roper, 5 Esp. 175 (1805). The Act does not give definite directions as to the proper place to present a bill, but the rules laid down in section 88, as to presentment for payment, would seem to be reasonable in so far as they are applicable. According to this, a bill should be presented for acceptance, (1) at the address given, if any; (2) if no address is given, to the drawee personally or to his duly authorized agent, or at his ordinary place of business, if known; and if not, at his ordinary residence, if known. If he has no known residence in the place it may be presented at his last known place of business $ 75 Express or residence. The object of presentment for acceptance is to reach the drawee or an agent authorized by him to accept; the object of presentment for payment is to get the money, and it should be made where the acceptor ought to have the money to pay the bill. 2. Where a bill expressly stipulates that it shall stipulation be presented for acceptance, or where a bill is drawn payable elsewhere than at the residence or place of business of the drawee, it must be presented for acceptance before it can be presented for payment. 53 V., c. 33, s. 39 (2). Imp. Act, ibid. Other case. The second part of this sub-section, according to Chalmers (p. 134), settles a point which had not been decided in England. In Upper Canada it had been decided that presentment for acceptance was not necessary in such a case, so that it introduces new law in Ontario: Richardson v. Daniels, 5 U. C. O. S. 671 (1838). This latter is the rule in the United States: Daniel, § 454; Walker v. Stetson, 19 Ohio St. 400 (1869); Neg. Insts. Law, § 240 (3); but not in France: Nouguier, § 1068. 3. In no other case is presentment for acceptance necessary in order to render liable any party to the bill. 53 V., c. 33, s. 39 (3). Imp. Act, ibid. A bill payable at a fixed period after date, or on or at a fixed period after the occurrence of a specified event, need not be presented for acceptance, unless it come within subsection 2. Although not necessary, it is, however, advisable to present such bills for acceptance, in order to secure the liability of the drawee if he accepts, or to have recourse at once against the other parties liable on the bill if he refuses to accept. An agent should in all cases present such bills for acceptance, or he may be held liable for negligence: Allen v. Suydam, 20 Wend. (N.Y.) 321 (1838); Pothier, Change, No. 128; Nouguier, § 462. If the bill contain the words "ac ceptance waived" or equivalent words, it need not be presented except for payment: Reg. v. Kinnear, 2 M. & R. 117 (1838); Freeman v. Boynton, 7 Mass. 483 (1811); Nouguier, § 470. $ 75 excused. 76. Where the holder of a bill, drawn payable Presentelsewhere than at the place of business or resi- ment dence of the drawee, has not time, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, to present the bill for acceptance before presenting it for payment on the day that it falls due, the delay caused by presenting the bill for acceptance before presenting it for payment is excused, and does not discharge the drawer and endorsers. 53 V., c. 33, s. 39 (4). Imp. Act, ibid. This sub-section is introduced in order to prevent hardship from the rule laid down in sub-section 2. It is applicable to bills payable at a fixed period after date, or on the occurrence of a specified event or at a fixed period after it. What is "reasonable diligence" will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case. 77. Subject to the provisions of this Act, when Sight bill. a bill payable at sight or after sight is negotiated, the holder must either present it for acceptance or negotiate it within a reasonable time. 53 sented. 2. If he does not do so, the drawer and all en- If not predorsers prior to that holder are discharged. V., c. 33, s. 40 (1) and (2); 54-55 V., c. 17, s. 5. Imp. Act, s. 40 (1) and (2). The provisions of the Act referred to are those that rclate to excuses for presentment which are found in section 79. The words "at sight or" are not in the Imperial Act, as bills payable at sight being payable on demand need not be presented for acceptance. Our Act of 1890 copied the Imperial Act without making the change in this section to correspond with that in section 23, omitting bills payable at sight from among those payable on demand. This was |