advances on condition he should get the first, was held en- § 159 titled to the latter to the extent of his advances, as against the holder, who claimed to hold them for a former balance due him: Société Generale v. Agopian, 11 T. L. R. 244 (1895). In an action against the drawer or indorsers, the part of the set which was protested must be produced: Downes v. Church, 13 Peters (U. S.) 205 (1839). CONFLICT OF LAWS. sections. Sections 160 to 164 lay down certain rules upon ques- Origin of tions involving the conflict of laws or private international law. On some of the points thus settled, there had been a great conflict of authority and decisions in England and Canada. These sections formed only one (71) in the Act of 1890, which was copied from section 72 of the Imperial Act, with the single substitution of "Canada" for the words. "United Kingdom" wherever they occur. The Negotiable Instruments Law does not deal with this subject. in Canada. On account of the peculiar character of our federal con- Questions stitution some new questions arise in consequence of the adoption of the language of the Imperial Act without change or definition. Is Canada one "country" within the meaning of sub-section 1? Or will the different provinces be considered as different countries for the purposes of these sections with respect to matters as to which the Act itself makes different provisions for them, or where the provincial laws directly or indirectly affecting bills and notes differ so widely? The answer will probably be that where the question to be decided is one of federal law, Canada will be considered as one country; where, however, it is a question of provincial law then each province concerned will be considered as a different country. The analogy of the United States does not afford us much assistance, as there the subject belongs to the individual States, each of which is, for purposes within its jurisdiction, considered a distinct and independent sovereignty. In these respects the States retain their separate autonomies, and are deemed as much foreign to each other as if they did not form a union at all. As the rules laid down in these sections are those generally § 159 recognized, the Courts will apply them to a settlement of interprovincial as well as international questions. Conflict of laws in Canada. Requisites of form. The points which arise under the Act involving such conflict between the laws of the different provinces, are numerous and important. Some of them arise under provisions of the Act itself, such as that of the due date of a bill being affected in certain cases by the non-juridical days differing in the different provinces under section 43; or the rules as to protests in Quebec differing from those in the other provinces. In sections 162 and 164 are laid down the rules which govern these cases. The questions will arise, however, chiefly from the conflict of provincial laws on such subjects as capacity, compensation, prescription, suretyship, joint liability, payment, etc. It is to be borne in mind that foreign law is a question of fact, and where it is relied upon it must be pleaded and proved by experts; otherwise the foreign law will be presumed to be the same as our own: Westlake, § 353; Smith v. Gould, 4 Moore P. C. 21 (1842); Cornelia v. Murietta, 40 Ch. D. 543 (1890.) These sections are applicable to promissory notes with the necessary modifications. sec. 186. The rules laid down in the Act are not at all exhaustive. In cases not provided for, the principles of the common law and the law merchant will be applied. For a full discussion of the important questions arising under this head, the reader is referred to the standard works on the subject, and to the full reports of the leading cases, some of which are cited in the following notes on the various clauses of these sections. 160. Where a bill drawn in one country is negotiated, accepted or payable in another, the validity of the bill as regards requisites in form is determined by the law of the place of issue, and the validity as regards requisites in form of the supervening contracts, such as acceptance, or endorsement, or acceptance supra protest, is determined by the law of the place where the contract was made: Provided that, (a) where a bill is issued out of Canada, it is 160 § not invalid by reason only that it is not Unstamped in accordance with the law of the stamped place of issue; bills. .ing to the Canada. (b) where a bill, issued out of Canada, conforms, Conformas regards requisites in form, to the law of law of Canada, it may, for the purpose of enforcing payment thereof, be treated as valid as between all persons who negotiate, hold or become parties to it in Canada. 53 V., c. 33, s. 71 (1). Imp. Act, s. 72 (1). Canada. As to the meaning of the word "country" in this part Drawn in of the Act, see ante p. 383. As the Act lays down the requisites in form not only for bills themselves but also for the supervening contracts named, the whole of Canada is only one country for the purposes of this section, which is applicable wherever Canada is the place of one or more but not of all the operations or contracts named in the section. The provisions of the Act as to the form of bills apply only to those issued in Canada, and those as to the form of the supervening contracts only to such of them as may be made. in Canada. "Drawing, in reference to bills of exchange, includes Meaning not only the writing and signing, but also the full execution of drawing by delivery": Wallace v. Souther, 2 S. C. Can. at p. 613 (1878). A bill is not "drawn" until it is issued, that is, delivered, complete in form, to the payee or endorsee if it is payable to order, or to some person as bearer, if it is payable to bearer: sec. 2. The contracts of acceptance and endorsement, like that of the drawer, are only complete upon delivery, so that it is the delivery in each case which determines the place of the contract: Chapman v. Cottrell, 34 L. J. Ex. 186 (1865). A bill is presumed to have been issued and endorsed at the place where it bears date, and to have been accepted at the place at which the drawee is addressed, unless there is something on it to show that the contract was in fact made in some other place. M'L.B.E. A.-25 § 160 Lex loci. American rules. The rule in this section, that the validity of a bill as regards the form of the bill itself, or of the acceptance or endorsement, is to be governed in each case by the lex loci contractus is one that is generally recognized. See on this point, Story on the Conflict of Laws, secs. 238, 260, 262; Westlake, § 228; Dicey, p. 588; 1 Daniel, §§ 867, 868. "Acts and deeds made out of Lower Canada are valid if made and passed according to the forms required by the law of the country where they were passed or made": C. C. Art. 7. See also Guepratte v. Young, 4 DeG. & Sm. at p. 228 (1851). When a bill is drawn on a person in a foreign country or made payable there, what the drawer and endorsers agree to do is not to pay the bill in the foreign country, but they guarantee that it will be accepted and paid by the drawee, and if he does not do so, they will, if duly notified, reimburse the holder at the place where they have respectively drawn or endorsed the bill. There are no reported cases on this section of the Canadian or the corresponding section of the Imperial Act; but the following will show the application of the principle by the American Courts: A bill drawn in Michigan, where a verbal acceptance is not recognized, upon a person in Illinois, where such an acceptance is binding, may be validly accepted by parol: Mason v. Dousay, 35 Ill. 424 (1864); Bissell v. Lewis, 4 Mich. 450 (1857). A bill drawn in Illinois upon a person in Missouri, where a verbal acceptance is not legal, and verbally accepted by the drawee in Illinois, binds him: Scudder v. Union National Bank, 91 U. S. (1 Otto) 406 (1875). A verbal agreement in Missouri by a Chicago firm to accept and pay in Chicago certain drafts for goods consigned, is governed by the law of Illinois, the place of performance, and is consequently binding: Hall v. Cordell, 142 U. S. 116 (1891). Proviso (a) adopts the well established rule of the common law that no country will regard or enforce the revenue laws. laws of another country, See Story, secs. 245, 257; Boucher § 160 r Lawson, Cas. temp. Hard. 89, 194 (1734); Holman v. Johnson, Cowp. 341 (1775); Biggs v. Lawrence, 3 T. R. 454 Revenue (1789); Lightfoot v. Tenant, 1 B. & P. 551, 557 (1796); Planche v. Fletcher, 1 Dougl. 251 (1779); James v. Catherwood, 3 D. & R. 190 (1823); Wynne v. Jackson, 2 Russ. 351 (1826); Ludlow v. Van Rensselaer, 1 Johns. (N. Y.) 94 (1806). The doctrine of Clegg v. Levy, 3 Camp. 166 (1812), and Bristow v. Sequeville, 5 Ex. 275 (1850), that where the want of a stamp not only rendered a bill inadmissible in evidence but absolutely void in the foreign country were drawn, it would be held void in England, is not recognized by the Act, as regards bills drawn in one country and negotiated or payable in another. Proviso (b) contains an exception to the general rule Exception. laid down in the section. It validates bills which might be invalid by the law of the place of issue, as between those who have negotiated, held or become parties, to them in this country. This applies not only to the body of the bill, but also to the acceptance and endorsement. Bills of exchange were drawn in France by a domiciled Frenchman in the French language in English form on an English company, who duly accepted them. The drawer indorsed the bills and sent them to an Englishman in Eng land. It was held that the acceptor could not dispute the negotiability of the bills by reason of the indorsements being invalid according to French law, when they would be valid indorsements according to the law of England: Re Marseilles Extension Ry. & L. Co., 30 Ch. D. 598 (1885). 161. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Lex loci. interpretation of the drawing, endorsement, acceptance or acceptance supra protest of a bill, drawn in one country and negotiated, accepted or payable in another, is determined by the law of the place where such contract is made: Provided that where an inland bill is endorsed in a foreign country, the endorsement shall, as regards the payer, be interpreted according to the law of |