Greenwell, 10 A. & E. 222 (1839); " on demand after my decease": 2. It was held in Andrews v. Franklin, 1 Str. 24 (1717), that a note payable two months after a Government ship was paid off, was a good note as Government was certain to pay; but this decision is open to question. 3. A promise to pay when an infant comes of age, naming the day, is a good note: Goss v. Nelson, 1 Burr. 226 (1757); also a promise to pay on a day named, or when a certain work is completed, the day named being held to be the day when it fell due: Stevens v. Blount, 7 Mass. 240 (1810); "on or by " a certain day: Massie v. Belford, 68 Ill. 290 (1873); Preston v. Dunham, 52 Ala. 217 (1875); on or before a certain time: Bates v. Leclair, 49 Vt. 229 (1877); Helmer v. Krolick, 36 Mich. 371 (1877). $ 24 Certain to happen. 25. An inland bill is a bill which is, or on the Inland bill face of it purports to be, (a) both drawn and payable within Canada; or, (b) drawn within Canada upon some person resident therein. 2. Any other bill is a foreign bill. s. 4 (1). Imp. Act, ibid. defined. 53 V., c. 33, Other The foregoing is taken from the Imperial Act, the only change being the substitution of "Canada" for the "British Islands." Prior to the passing of the Act, the different provinces were, as a rule, considered to be foreign to each other; but a note made in Upper Canada, payable in Montreal, was held to be payable generally under 7 Wm. IV. c. 5, and treated as an inland note: Bradbury v. Doole, 1 U. C. Q. B. 442 (1841). In a later case, however, a similar note was treated as a foreign note and proof of the Lower Canadian law received: McLellan v. McLellan, 17 U. C. C. P. 109 (1866). In Quebec the Civil Code, Art. 2336, provided that bills drawn upon persons in Upper Canada, or any other of the British North American Colonies, and returned under protest for non-payment, were subject to four per cent. damages. Most of the other provinces had similar provisions. See Con. Stat. U. C. c. 42, s. 9; Rev. Stat. N. S. (3rd Series) c. 32, s. 1; 1 Rev. Stat. N. B. (1854) c. 116, s. 1; and Acts of P. E. I., 17 Geo. III. c. 5, s. 2. These damages were abolished bills. § 25 Inland or foreign. by the Dominion Act, 38 V. c. 19, and only the amount of the bill, with the cost of noting and protest, interest, exchange and re-exchange, were to be recoverable after the 1st of July, 1875, on a bill drawn upon any person in the Dominion or Newfoundland. The following are inland bills: 1. A bill drawn in Canada upon some person resident there and payable in Canada. 2. A bill drawn in Canada upon some person abroad but payable in Canada. 3. A bill drawn in Canada upon some person resident there but payable abroad. 4. A bill which on its face purports to come within any of the foregoing classes but which was actually drawn abroad though dated in Canada. The place of payment in any of the foregoing cases may be determined by the acceptance: sec. 38, s.-s. 4. If no place of payment is specified in a bill or acceptance it is payable at the address of the drawee or acceptor: sec. 88 ((b). Forms of inland and also of foreign bills will be found in the Appendix. It is sometimes of importance to determine whether a bill is an inland or a foreign one. The latter, when dishonored in any part of Canada by non-acceptance or nonpayment, must be protested: sec. 112. In any other province than Quebec an inland bill need not be protested; notice of dishonor is sufficient: sec. 113. The drawer, acceptor, and each endorser of a bill is a several and distinct contracting party, and the rights, duties, and liabilities of these parties respectively may vary according to the law of the place of issue, or of the place where such contract was made, or where it is to be performed. On this point see sections 160 and 161. As to inland and foreign promissory notes, see sections 177 and 187. In the United States the different States are considered to be foreign to each other for the purposes of bills of exchange: Daniel, § 9. ILLUSTRATIONS. $25 1. On a bill drawn in London, England, on defendant in Toronto, Inland or but accepted by him in London and payable there, plaintiff was al- foreign. lowed the current rate of exchange on the day it became due, and not merely 24s. 4d. in the £ sterling: Greatorex v. Score, 6 U. C. L. J. 212 (1860). 2. A bill in blank signed and endorsed in Ireland, sent to Eng land where the blanks were filled up and the bill negotiated there, is a foreign bill: Snaith v. Mingay, 1 M. & S. 87 (1813). 3. A bill written and accepted in England and sent abroad to the drawer, who signed it there, is a foreign bill: Boehm v. Campbell, Gow 46 (1818). 4. A bill drawn in London upon Brussels and accepted there, but payable in London, is an inland bill: Amner v. Clark, 2 C. M. & R. 468 (1835). 5. A bill payable to order, drawn, accepted and payable in England, but indorsed in France, is an inland bill: Lebel v. Tucker, L. R. 3 Q. B. 77 (1867). 6. A bill drawn and payable in England upon a Boston house, and accepted in England by a partner of the Boston house, who was there at the time, held to be a foreign bill, as if accepted in Boston: Grimshaw v. Bender, 6 Mass. 157 (1809). 7. A bill drawn in one State and payable in another, is a foreign bill, although all parties are citizens of one State: Grafton Bank v. Moore, 14 N. H. 142 (1843). 3. Unless the contrary appears on the face of Presumpthe bill, the holder may treat it as an inland bill. tion. 53 V., c. 33, s. 4 (2). Imp. Act, ibid. This is given by Chalmers as new law. He says, p. 16: "The result appears to be that though a bill purports to be a foreign bill, the holder may nevertheless show that it is in fact an inland bill for the purpose of excusing protest; while if it purports to be an inland bill, though really a foreign bill, he may treat it at his option as either." The former part of this quotation appears to be clear; not however from sub-section 3, but from the first part of the section, which declares that to be an inland bill which is drawn and payable within Canada, or is drawn within. Canada upon some person resident therein. If actually drawn within Canada it may be treated as an inland bill Inland or foreign. § 25 although dated abroad. The second part of the above quotation does not appear to be authorized by any part of the section. The most obvious meaning of suo-section 3 would appear to be the same as that part of the first sub-section which declares that to be an inland bill which on its face purports to be drawn within Canada although actually drawn abroad, and which meets the other requisites of an inland bill. Bill or note Option. Fictitious drawee. 26. Where in a bill drawer and drawee are the same person. or where the drawee is a fictitious person or a person not having capacity to contract, the holder may treat the instrument, at his option, either as a bill of exchange or as a promissory note. 53 V., c. 33, s. 5 (2). Imp. Act, ibid. Where the drawer and the drawee are the same person notice of dishonor is dispensed with as regards the drawer: sec. 107 (a). Where a bill is drawn upon a fictitious person or person not having capacity to contract by bill, presentment for acceptance is excused: sec. 79 (a); also presentment for payment if drawee is fictitious: sec. 92 (b). Notice of dishonor is, in such cases, dispensed with as regards the drawer: sec. 107 (b), and also as regards an indorser who was aware of the fact at the time he endorsed the bill: sec. 108 (a). For instance, a bill is drawn upon a fictitious person, or a minor, or a corporation having no power to incur liability on a bill, or a married woman having no separation of property from her husband in the Province of Quebec and not a trader or merchande publique. The holder may treat it as a note, and without presenting or protesting it, sue the drawer or such endorser. ILLUSTRATIONS. 1. A bill is drawn upon a fictitious person and negotiated by the drawer. The holder may treat it as a note of the drawer and need not prove presentment or notice of dishonor: Smith v. Bellamy, 2 Stark. 223 (1817). 2. An instrument in the form of a bill, drawn upon a bank, by the manager of one of its branch banks, by order of the directors, may be treated as a note: Miller v. Thompson, 3 M. & G. 576 (1841). 3. The directors of a joint stock company draw a bill in the name of the company, addressed "To the Cashier." The holder may treat it as a note by the company: Allen v. Sea, F. & L. A. Co., 9 C. B. 574 (1850). 4. Although instruments where drawer and drawee are the same persons are promissory notes rather than bills, yet where the intention to give and receive them as bills of exchange is clear, both the holders and the parties may treat them accordingly: Willans v. Ayers, 3 App. Cas. 133 (1877). 5. A draft by a branch bank on the head office is not a bill of exchange, but the holder may sue the bank upon treating it as a bill or a note at his option : Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon, [1903] A. C. 240. 6. A bill drawn by a party upon himself is a bill of exchange in the hands of an indorsee: Randolph v. Parish, 9 Porter, 76 (1839). 7. Where the president of a company drew upon its treasurer for the amount due the payee as contractor, the holder may treat it as a draft of the company on itself or as a note of the company: Fairchild v. Ogdensburgh K. R. Co., 15 N. Y. 337 (1857); approved in Mobley v. Clark, 28 Barb. 391 (1858). See Taylor v. Newman, 77 Mo. 257 (1883). 27. A bill is not invalid by reason only,— $ 26 Bill or note. Valid bill. (a) that it is not dated; 53 V., c. 33, s. 3 (4a). Not dated. Imp. Act, ibid. A bill without a date is irregular, although not invalid. If issued undated and payable at a fixed period after date, any holder may insert the true date of issue and it shall be payable accordingly: sec. 30. It is presumed to be dated on the day it is made: Hague v. French, 3 B. & P. 173 (1802); Giles v. Bourne, 6 M. & S. 73 (1817); and proof of this may be made by parol: Davis v. Jones, 17 C. B. 625 (1856). Although not an essential part of a bill the date is a material part, and when altered without proper assent renders the bill void sec. 146. In France a bill must be dated or it is invalid: Code de Com. Art. 110. 53 of value. (b) that it does not specify the value given, or Statement that any value has been given therefor; V., c. 33, s. 3 (4b). Imp. Act, ibid. Formerly the words "value received" or some words Value. implying consideration were necessary: Byles, p. 95; Ran |