apply to Upper Canada (Ridout v. Manning, 1850, 7 U.C.R. Sources of law of ex35). This statute was the most comprehensive enactment relatchange in ing to bills and notes which was passed in any part of Canada Quebec. prior to the Civil Code. In effect it introduced into Lower Canada many of the rules of English law and some of the statutes of Upper Canada, and provided that in all matters relating to bills and notes, in regard to which no provision was made in the Act, recourse should be had to the laws then in force in Lower Canada, and, in cases not provided for by such laws, then to the laws of England as at the time of the passing of the Act, i.e., the 30th day of May, 1849. The statute just mentioned did not remedy the uncertainty of the law in Lower Canada, inasmuch as resort was to be had to the laws of England only when the existing laws of Lower Canada were silent. See the whole subject learnedly discussed in Girouard's Essai sur les Lettres de change et les Billets promissoires, Montreal, 1860. The seventh report of the commissioners appointed to codify the laws of Lower Canada in civil matters contains the following remarks in regard to bills, notes and cheques : "The works of Savary, a writer of great experience and industry, are based chiefly upon the Ordinance of 1673, which, according to the prevailing opinion, is not received as law with us. The same observation is true of the Traité du Change of Pothier, and thus the guidance of that admirable jurist, which in almost all instances is so complete and unerring, cannot be implicitly followed in this. "Looking from these authors, to the usages among our merchants, and to the adjudged cases in the courts, more or less sanctioned by special statutory provisions, it would seem that our law in relation to bills of exchange has gradually been formed, less from the ancient French law, which is its legitimate source, than from the commercial usages and jurisprudence of England, aided by the legislation and learning of modern France. It can scarcely, however, for that reason, be regarded as new law; for the observation of Heineccius, as cited, by Story, shews the breadth of the basis of all municipal laws on the subject of bills of exchange. The laws of all nations on this subject, he justly says, entirely agree in most things; there are certain principles common to all nations which constitute the proper foundations upon which the whole law of exchange Sources of law of exchange in Quebec. rests as a part of the municipal jurisprudence of each country. These principles, having their origin in the customs and practice of exchange, are considered so proper in themselves that all the just conclusions deducible from them are deemed of universal obligation." As already noted above, the Civil Code of 1866 resolved the doubts previously existing as to the law of Lower Canada by providing that in all cases not provided for by the code resort should be had to the laws of England as of the 30th of May, 1849. CHAPTER XXXII. THE BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT: SHORT TITLE AND INTERPRETA TION. THE REVISED STATUTES OF CANADA, 1906, CHAPTER 119. AN ACT RELATING TO BILLS OF EXCHANGE, CHEQUES AND SHORT TITLE. 1. This Act may be cited as the Bills of Exchange Act. 53 Short title. V., c. 33, s. 1. Eng. s. 1. The original of this Act was passed in 1890 (see last chapter) by virtue of the exclusive jurisdiction conferred upon the Dominion Parliament by the 91st section of the British North America Act, 1867, to make laws with regard to Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes. Its short title was "The Bills of Exchange Act, 1890." The Act of 1890 both in arrangement and wording, was a copy of the English Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, except in a few particulars. In the revision of the Dominion Statutes in 1906, however, many material alterations were made in the arrangement and constitution of the sections. Many of the sections of the new Act consist of sub-sections and parts of different sections of the old Act, and even more frequently sections of the old Act have been divided into parts and sub-sections and now appear in separate sections of the new Act. At the end of each section of the Act, a note is made of the Correspondcorresponding section or parts of sections of the English Act ing sections of English of 1882. The number of the section of the English Act is pre- Act. ceded by the abbreviation "Eng." in order to distinguish this reference from the official reference at the end of each section Sec. 1. Rule of construction of code. to the Canadian Act of 1890 and amending Acts. It is in no case to be taken for granted that the corresponding English section is in exactly the same words as the Canadian Statute. Owing to the re-arrangement of sections effected by the revision of 1906, there is very often some verbal difference between the English and Canadian statutes. Whenever the difference is significant, a special note will be made of the fact. The Act is a codifying Act, and the rule for its construction was stated by Lord Herschell in Bank of England v. Vagliano, [1891] A.C. at pp. 144-5, as follows: "I think the proper course is in the first instance to examine the language of the statute and to ask what is its natural meaning, uninfluenced by any consideration derived from the previous state of the law, and not to start with inquiring how the law previously stood, and then, assuming that it was probably intended to leave it unaltered, to see if the words of the enactment will bear an interpretation in conformity with this view. "If a statute, intended to embody in a code a particular branch of law, is to be treated in this fashion, it appears to me its utility will be almost entirely destroyed, and the very object with which it was enacted will be frustrated. The purpose of such a statute surely was that on any point specifically dealt with by it, the law should be ascertained by interpreting the language used instead of, as before, by roaming over a vast number of authorities in order to discover what the law was, extracting it by a minute, critical examination of the prior decisions, dependent upon a knowledge of the exact effect even of an obsolete proceeding such as a demurrer to evidence. I am of course far from asserting that resort may never be had to the previous state of the law for the purpose of aiding in the construction of the provisions of the code. If, for example, a provision be of doubtful import, such resort would be perfectly legitimate. Or, again, if in a code of the law of negotiable instruments words. be found which have previously acquired a technical meaning or been used in a sense other than their ordinary one, in relation to such instruments, the same interpretation might well be put upon them in the code. I give these as examples merely; they, of course, do not exhaust the category. What, however, I am venturing to insist upon is, that the first step taken should be to interpret the language of the statute, and that an appeal to early decisions can only be justified on some special ground." of code. This rule of construction was approved by Lord Watson in Sec. 1. Robinson v. C.P.R., [1892] A.C. at p. 487. See also Abbott v. Rule of Fraser, 1874, L.R. 6 P.C. at pp. 116-117, where the Judicial construction Committee says of the Civil Code of Lower Canada, "When this code contains rules on any given subject complete in themselves, they alone are binding, and cannot be controlled by the pre-existing laws on the subject, which can then be properly referred to only to elucidate, in cases of doubtful construction, the language of the code," and compare Bank of Toronto v. St. Lawrence, [1903] A.C. at p. 66, and Hinton v. Bank of Montreal, 1903, 9 B.C.R. 545, 548-550. INTERPRETATION. Definitions. 2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,(a) 'acceptance' means an acceptance completed by delivery 'Accepor notification; (b) 'action' includes counter-claim and set off; tance.' 'Action.' (c) 'bank' means an incorporated bank or savings bank 'Bank.' carrying on business in Canada; (d) 'bearer' means the person in possession of a bill or note 'Bearer.' which is payable to bearer; (e) 'bill' means bill of exchange, and 'note' means pro- 'Bill,' missory note; 'note.' (f) 'delivery' means transfer of possession, actual or con- 'Delivery." structive, from one person to another; (g) 'holder' means the payee or endorsee of a bill or note 'Holder.' who is in possession of it, or the bearer thereof; (h) 'endorsement' means an endorsement completed by 'Endorsedelivery; ment.' (i) ‘issue' means the first delivery of a bill or note, com-'Issue.’ plete in form, to a person who takes it as a holder; (j) 'value' means valuable consideration; 'Value.' (k) 'defence' includes counter-claim; 'Defence.' (1) 'non-business days' means days directed by this Act to' Non-busi be observed as legal holidays or non-juridical days. ness days.' 2. Any day other than as aforesaid is a business day. 53 V., Business days. c. 33, ss. 2 and 91. Eng. ss. 2 and 92. |