at his last residence was held good: Gillespie v. Marsh, 1 U. C. C. P. 453 (1852). § 97 Where 3. Where S., an indorser, died and notices were sent addressed party to the "Administrators of S.'s estate," at B., and also at C., where dead. the deceased had lived, and it appeared that they reached them, the estate was held liable: McKenzie v. Northrop, 22 U. C. C. P. 383 (1872). 4. The indorser, a married woman, died intestate. A notice was addressed to the husband as executor of his wife and received hy him. The wife's estate was held liable: Merchants' Bank v. Bell, 29 Grant 413 (1881). 5. Where an indorser has recently died and no administrator or executor can be found, a notice addressed to the legal representative" of deceased is sufficient: Pillow v. Hardeman, 3 Humphrey (Tenn.) 538 (1842). 6. A notice addressed to one of several executors or administrators is sufficient: Bealls v. Peck, 12 Barb. 245 (1851). drawer. (d) in case of two or more drawers or endorsers Two The contrary had been held in Upper Canada: Bank of In the case of partners notice to the firm is notice to all; even where the drawer is a member of the firm which accepted the bill: Hills v. Thorowgood, 5 L. J. K. B. 214 (1836). 98. Notice of dishonour may be given, (a) as soon as the bill is dishonoured; Notice. Earliest time. (b) to the party to whom the same is required to To whom. agent in that behalf; 53 V., be given, or to his c. 33, s. 49 (k, h). Imp. Act, s. 49 (12, 8). A notice that a bill was going to be dishonoured would not be sufficient under the Act. It may be given immedi M'L.B.E.A.-18 § 98 ately upon dishonour, and is invalid if given later than the next following business day unless excused or dispensed with: sec. 97 (a). Notice to whom. Where notice is given not to the party himself but to an agent, it should be an agent designated for that purpose, or in charge or employed at his office or residence. ILLUSTRATIONS. 1. A notice to a firm about a note alleged to be indorsed by them, held not to be sufficient to bind a partner who was the real indorser Bank of Montreal v. Grover, 3 U. C. Q. B. 27 (1846). 2. Delivery of a notice to a man cutting wood in the indorser's yard is insufficient, there being no evidence that the man was an inmate of the family or that the indorser received the notice: Commercial Bank v. Weller, 5 U. C. Q. B. 543 (1848). 3. Where the maker of a note gave the wrong address of his accommodation indorser, a notice to the latter at the address given was held to be binding on him: McMurrich v. Powers, 10 U. C. Q. B. 481 (1853). 4. Where an indorser goes to fill an office temporarily but leaves his family in his old home, a notice left there is sufficient: Ryan v. Malo, 12 L. C. R. 8 (1861). 5. Notice to the curator in Quebec will not bind the indorser: Denenberg v. Mendelssohn, Q. R. 23 S. C. 128 (1903); Molsons Bank v. Steel, ibid. 316 (1903). 6. Verbal notice to the solicitor of an indorser is insufficient: Crosse v. Smith, 1 M. & S. at p. 554 (1813). 7. Notice to the person who has indorsed the bill under a power of attorney is probably good notice to the indorser: Firth v. Thrush, 8 B. & C. at p. 391 (1828). 8. Notice to a chant, is sufficient: clerk in the office of the indorser, who is a merAllen v. Edmundson, 2 Ex. at p. 724 (1848). 9. Notice to a referee indicated by an indorser is not sufficient to bind the latter: Ex parte Prange, L. R. 1 Eq. at p. 5 (1865). 10. Information of a dishonor received by the secretary of a company is not notice to him as the secretary of another company, unless it was his duty in the former capacity to communicate it to the latter company: In re Fenwick Stobart & Co., Ex parte Deep Sea F. Co. [1902] 1 Ch. 507. 11. Where a party has no office, and boards at a private boarding house, a notice left there with a fellow-boarder, in his absence, is sufficient: Bank of U. S. v. Hatch, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 250 (1832). By agent. (c) by an agent either in his own name or in the § 98 name of any party entitled to give notice whether that party is his principal or not; 53 V., c. 33, s. 49 (b). Imp. Act, s. 49 (2). See section 97 (b) and the notes thereon, ante p. 271. (d) in writing or by personal communication and Manner. in any terms which identify the bill and intimate that the bill has been dishonoured by nonacceptance or non-payment. 53 V., c. 33, s. 49 (e). Imp. Act, s. 49 (5). dishonor. The tendency of modern decisions in England has been Notice of to accept as sufficient any notice however informal, from which the party receiving it may know that the bill, on which he is conditionally liable, has been dishonoured. In Solarte How to be v. Palmer, 1 Bing. N. C. 194 (1834), the House of Lords given held that a notice must inform the holder either in terms or by necessary implication, that the bill had been presented and dishonoured. Chalmers says, p. 161: " Since 1841 it does not appear that any written notice of dishonour has been held bad on the ground of insufficiency in form." Under the Act very informal notices will suffice and the notice in the case referred to by Chalmers, Furze v. Sharwood, 2 Q. B. 388(1841), would no doubt now be held to be good. In the schedule to the Act are given forms (G. and H.) of notice of noting and of protest, for non-acceptance or nonpayment. ILLUSTRATIONS. 1. A notice that a foreign bill has been returned protested is a sufficient notice of non-acceptance, without sending a copy of the protest with the notice: O'Neil v. Perrin, Rob. & Jos. Dig. 496 (1839); Goodman v. Harvey, 4 A. & E. 870 (1836). 2. A notice to the indorser must, either in express terms or by necessary intendment, shew that the note has been presented for payment, and that payment has been refused: Bank of U. C. v. Street, Rob. & Jos. Dig. 496 (1841). 3. A notice to an indorser, describing the bill and saying that it "is due this day and unpaid, and as holder I look to you for payment," is sufficient: Bank of U. C. v. Street, 3 U. C. Q. B. 29 (1846); Blinn v. Dixon, 5 U. C. Q. B. 580 (1848); Robson v. Curlewis, 2 Q. B. 421 (1842). Also a verbal message to the drawer to the same effect: Metcalfe v. Richardson, 11 C. B. 1011 (1852). $98 Notice of 4. What is or is not a sufficient notice of the dishonor of a bill or note, when the facts are undisputed, is a question of law: Bank of U. C. v. Smith, 4 U. C. Q. B. 483 (1847). 5. A notice to an indorser stating that the note was duly protested for non-payment, is sufficient without saying that it was presented: Blain v. Oliphant, 9 U. C. Q. B. 473 (1852). 6. A notice describing the note, and adding, "you will in consedishonor. quence of non-payment be held responsible," is sufficient: Harris v. Perry, 8 U. C. C. P. 407 (1858). 7. The following letter from a bank manager to a customer who had deposited a cheque for collection is sufficient: "I am now advised that it (the cheque) has not yet been covered by Bank of P. E. Island. In case of its being returned here unpaid, I deem it proper to notify you of the circumstances, as I will be required in that event to reverse the entry and return it to the department": The Queen v. Bank of Montreal, 1 Exch. Can. 154 (1886). 8. The following notice was held sufficient to bind an indorser and his wife, whose agent he was: "I beg to advise you that T. C. L.'s note for $3,500 in your favor and indorsed by yourself and wife was due yesterday. As I have not received renewal, will you kindly see that same is forwarded with cheque for discount." Counsell v. Livingstone, 4 O. L. R. 340 (1902). 9. Where the plaintiff swore that a note was protested after presentment and notice sent, but the protest was not produced, this does not prove the protest; but in the absence of any weakening by cross-examination or otherwise, it may be sufficient proof of notice of dishonor: Wiedeman v. Guittard, 1 0. W. R. 110 (1902). 10. A notice giving other particulars of the note but not mentioning the amount is sufficient, when there is no evidence of the existence of another note: Handyside v. Courtney, 1 L. C. J. 250 (1857). 11. A notice to a female indorser, beginning "Sir," is sufficient if it reached her: Mitchell v. Browne, 9 L. C. J. 168 (1865), overruling Seymour v. Wright, 3 L. C. R. 454 (1852). 12. Where the notice of dishonor does not state that a foreign bill has been protested, the indorser will not be liable: Delaney v. Hall. 3 N. S. (2 Thom.) 401 (1858): see Rogers v. Stephens, 2 T. R. 713 (1788): Gale v. Walsh, 5 T. R. 239 (1793); Robins v. Gibson, 1 M. & S. 288 (1813). Contra, Ex parte Lowenthal, L. R. 9 Ch. 591 (1874). 13. Where it was alleged that a notice of dishonor was sent by telegraph, but the contents of the telegram were not proved, and no evidence given of its having been received, the indorser was held to be discharged: McLean v. Garnier, 15 N. S. (3 R. & G.) 276 (1882). 14. The issue and service of a writ of summons is not a sufficient notice of dishonor to bind an indorser, although the writ was served on the same day that the note was dishonored: Commercial Bank v. Allan, 10 Man. 330 (1894). 15. A verbal notice by the holder at the drawer's house to his wife is sufficient without saying where the bill is lying: Housego v. Cowne, 2 M. & W. 348 (1837). $ 98 16. If there be more than one bill to which the notice may refer, What is the onus is on the defendant to prove this fact: Shelton v. Braith sufficient. waite, 7 M. & W. 436 (1841); Gates v. Beecher, 60 N. Y. (Sickles) at p. 527 (1875). 17. A notice to an indorser describing the bill and stating that it lies at a certain place dishonored, is sufficient: King v. Bickley, 2 Q. B. 419 (1842). 18. The holder's clerk wrote to an indorser that J. C.'s acceptance due that day was unpaid, and requesting his immediate attention to it. Held, a sufficient notice of dishonor: Bailey v. Porter, 14 M. & W. 44 (1845). To the same effect, Armstrong v. Christiani, 5 C. B. 687 (1848); Everard v. Watson, 1 E. & B. 801 (1853); Paul v. Joel, 3 H. & N. 455; 4 H. & N. 355 (1859); Bain v. Gregory, 14 L. T. N. S. 601 (1866). The spirit of the Act is in favour of holding any notice sufficient which would reasonably inform the party that the bill on which his name appears has been dishonoured. See the next section. 2. A misdescription of the bill shall not vitiate Misdethe notice unless the party to whom the notice is scription. given is in fact misled thereby. 53 V., c. 33, s. 49 (g). Imp. Act, s. 49 (7). The following errors have been held not to vitiate the notice, the correct particulars being sufficient to identify the bill or note a mistake in the due date of the bill or in its date: Blinn v. Dixon, 5 U. C. Q. B. 580 (1848); Thorn v. Sandford, 6 U. C. C. P. 462 (1857); Low v. Owen, 12 ibid. 101 (1862); Cassidy v. Mansfield, 24 ibid. 383 (1874); Robinson v. Taylor, 4 N. B. (2 Kerr) 198 (1843); Mills v. Bank of U. S., 11 Wheat. (U.S.) 431 (1826); Smith v. Whiting, 12 Mass. 6 (1815):-giving a wrong amount: Thompson v. Cotterell, 11 U. C. Q. B. 185 (1854); Bank of Alexandria v. Swann, 9 Pet. (U. S.) 33 (1835);-giving the name of a party incorrectly: Girvan v. Price, 8 N. B. (3 Allen) 409 (1857); Harpham v. Child, 1 F. & F. 652 (1859); Dennistoun v. Stewart, 17 How. (U. S.) 606 (1854);-transposing the names of the drawer and acceptor: Mellersh v. Rippen, 7 Ex. 578 (1852);—calling a bill a note, or vice versa: Stockman v. Parr, 11 M. & W. 809 (1843);-naming the wrong bank or |