Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

§ 98 place where the bill was payable or was lying: Bromage v. Vaughan, 9 Q. B. 608 (1846); Rowlands v. Springett, 14 M. & W. 7 (1845).

Form.

Return of bill.

Signature.

Verbal supple

ment.

Notice to agent.

99. In point of form,

(a) the return of a dishonoured bill to the drawer or an endorser is a sufficient notice of dishonour; (b) a written notice need not be signed.

2. An insufficient written notice may be supplemented and validated by verbal communication. 53 V., c. 33, s. 49 (ƒ, g). Imp. Act, s. 49 (6, 7).

If the bill is returned to an endorser who looks to prior endorsers or to the drawer, he should give them notice not later than the next following business day: sec. 101.

A verbal notice may be sufficient: sec. 98 (d).

Although a written notice need not be signed it should come from the right person or his agent: Maxwell v. Brain, 10 L. T. N. S. 301 (1864).

A notice by holder to indorser in these terms:-" Messrs. H. are surprised to hear that Mrs. G.'s bill was returned to the holder unpaid," followed by a visit from the indorser to the holder the same day, when he expressed his regret and promised to write to the other parties, was held sufficient: Houlditch v. Cauty, 4 Bing. N. C. 411 (1838).

For other instances of imperfect written notices accompanied or followed by verbal communications, see East v. Smith, 4 D. &. L. 744 (1847); Chard v. Fox, 14 Q. B. 200 (1849); Jennings v. Roberts, 4 E. & B. 615 (1855). Viale v. Michael, 30 L. T. N. S. 463 (1874):

100. Where a bill when dishonoured is in the hands of an agent he may himself give notice to Effect on the parties liable on the bill, or he may give notice to his principal, in which case the principal upon receipt of the notice shall have the same time for

principal.

giving notice as if the agent had been an indepen- § 100 dent holder.

2. If the agent gives notice to his principal he Time for. must do so within the same time as if he were an

independent holder. 53 V., c. 33, s. 49 (2). Act, s. 49 (13).

Imp.

This and the following section lay down the rule for successive notices of dishonour, a practice not generally followed in Canada before the Act, where the usage has been for the holder at the time of dishonour to give notice to all the parties through the post office in accordance with the rules laid down in section 103.

As such a large proportion of the commercial paper of the country is at the time of its maturity held by the banks, either under discount or for collection, the duty of giving notice of dishonour, as a rule, devolves upon them. They usually, through their notary, protest those that are dishonoured, and the protest and notice state that it is done at the request of the bank.

If the bank or other agent does not give notice to all the parties, the principal should be advised of this fact, as otherwise, in view of the general practice in this country, it might be held that such omission was negligence.

parties.

101. Where a party to a bill receives due notice Notice to of dishonour he has, after the receipt of such antecedent notice, the same period of time for giving notice. to antecedent parties that a holder has after dishonour. 53 V., c. 33, s. 49 (3). Imp. Act, s. 49 (14).

Each party receiving notice of dishonour has the whole of the next following business day to send notice to any party to the bill whom he desires to hold liable. If not so given, the fact that the aggregate time of the successive notices is not exceeded will not avail; the promptness of one party will not avail to extend the time for another. A single break in the sequence is fatal: Miers v. Brown, 11 M. & W. 372 (1843). As the usage in Canada has been for the holder to give notice to all parties entitled to it, he should either do so still,

§ 101 or let the parties whom he notifies know that he is not giving notice to the others so that they may take steps to protect themselves if necessary.

Notice to prior parties.

Benefit enures.

Parties to whom.

See note to section 103, as to indorsers who do not give their address.

ILLUSTRATIONS.

1. A holder in the country gives to his banker there a bill payable in London. The banker sends it to his London agent, who presents it and gives notice of dishonor to the country banker. The latter, the day after getting notice, notifies the customer, who in turn notifies his indorser. The latter has received due notice: Bray v. Hadwen, 5 M. & S. 68 (1816).)

2. An indorser received a notice of dishonor from the post office on Sunday. Held, that he had until Tuesday to give notice to antecedent parties, as he was not bound to open his letter until Monday morning: Wright v. Shawcross, 2 B. & Ald. at p. 501, n. (1819).

3. Different branches of a bank are considered as distinct parties for the purpose of this section: Clode v. Bayley, 12 M. & W. 51 (1843); Prince v. Oriental Bank, 3 App. Cas. at p. 332 (1878); Steinhoff v. Merchants' Bank, 46 U. C. Q. B. 25 (1881).

4. A party pays a bill supra protest for the honor of an indorser who is abroad, and to whom he posts the bill the same day. The latter by return post sends notice of dishonor to the drawer. Although this is not received until six days after dishonor, it is in time: Goodall v. Polhill, 1 C. B. 233 (1845).

5. The holder in order to charge an earlier party by notice from himself, must send the notice as promptly as if to his own immediate indorser: Rowe v. Tipper, 13 C. B. 249 (1853).

6. The one day allowed by law to give notice cannot be extended to allow an agent and his principal to confer: Ex parte Prange, L. R. 1 Eq. (1865).

102. A notice of dishonour enures for the benefit,

(a) of all subsequent holders and of all prior endorsers who have a right of recourse against the party to whom it is given, where given on behalf of the holder;

(b) of the holder and of all endorsers subsequent to the party to whom notice is given, where given, by or on behalf of an endorser entitled under this Part to give notice. 53 V., c. 33, s. 49 (c, d). Imp. Act, s. 49 (3, 4).

Notice of dishonour may be given by or on behalf of § 102 the holder or by or on behalf of an endorser who at the time of giving it, is himself liable on the bill: sec. 97 (b).

The holder of a bill is entitled to avail himself of notice Enures to whom. of dishonour given by or on behalf of any such party to the bill or any previous holder: Chapman v. Keane, 3 A. & E. 193 (1835), over-ruling Tindal v. Brown, 1 T. R. 167 (1786); Wilson v. Swabey, 1 Stark. 34 (1815); Stafford v. Yates, 18 Johns. 327 (1820); Brailsford v. Williams, 15 Md. 157 (1859); Palen v. Shurtleff, 9 Metc. 581 (1845).

The holder may, at his option, give notice only to his immediate endorser, or to the drawer and endorsers, or to as many of them as he may desire to hold liable on the bill. He must give all such notices not later than the next following business day after dishonour. Any party so notified can avail himself of the notice given to any party prior to him. If all prior parties are not notified he must give notice to such of them as he may desire to look to, not later than the next following business day.

If some but not all endorsers are notified, any endorser so notified may give notice to any party prior to him not later than the next following business day. A notice by or on behalf of an endorser who has not been notified, or who has not waived notice, is of no avail to any party. See Horne v. Rouquette, 3 Q. B. D. at p. 517 (1878).

In these successive notices the sequence may be broken at any point by a failure to give notice at the proper time, the effect of which is to release all parties antecedent to the endorser who has thus broken the sequence, who may not have been previously notified.

giving.

103. Notice of the dishonour of any bill payable Sufficiin Canada, shall, notwithstanding anything in this ency of Act contained, be sufficiently given if it is addressed in due time to any party to such bill entitled to such notice, at his customary address or place of residence or at the place at which such bill is dated, unless any such party has, under his

§ 103 signature, designated another place, in which case such notice shall be sufficiently given if addressed to him in due time at such other place.

Sufficiency of

notice.

Death of party.

Source of

law.

Notice through

the post.

2. Such notice so addressed shall be sufficient, although the place of residence of such party is other than either of the places aforesaid, and shall be deemed to have been duly served and given for all purposes if it is deposited in any post office, with the postage paid thereon, at any time during the day on which presentment has been made, or on the next following juridical or business day.

3. Such notice shall not be invalid by reason. only of the fact that the party to whom it is addressed is dead. 53 V., c. 33, s. 49 (4).

The Imperial Act has no provision exactly corresponding to this sub-section, nor has the Negotiable Instruments Law. It is taken in part from section 5 of chapter 123 R. S. C. (1886), which was first enacted in 1874 and applied to the whole of Canada; and in part from section 23 of that chapter which applied to Ontario alone, and Article 2328 of the Civil Code which applied to Quebec. The last clause was added in harmony with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cosgrave v. Boyle, 6 S. C. Can. 165 (1881). If the death of the party is known to the party giving notice, then the notice should be given to the personal representative of the deceased, if he can be found: sec. 97 (c).

Heretofore in Canada the usage has been for the holder at the time of dishonour to send notice to all parties entitled to it through the post, addressed to them at the place at which the bill or note is dated. This is very frequently not the real address of the endorsers, especially when maker and payee or drawer and drawee reside in different parts of the country, and a great many of such notices never reach the parties to whom they are addressed. If the holder should not send a notice to all the parties, an endorser who in such a case has neglected to give his real address, may find that his recourse against antecedent parties is entirely gone. By section 104, when such a notice is addressed and posted, the sender is deemed to have given due notice, and by the pre

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »