154. The transferee of an altered bill has only the rights of the transferor. Burchfield v. Moore, 3 E. & B., 683. 155. If a person gives a renewal for a bill which has been vitiated by an alteration, he is not liable on the renewal, if he was not aware of the alteration at the time he gave the renewed bill. Bell v. Gardiner, 4 M. & G., 11. 156. The maker of a promissory note is discharged from his liability by any alteration of the note, wherever the altered instrument, if genuine, would operate differently from the original instrument, even though it should be to his advantage: as, for instance, if names are added to a joint and several note besides those originally intended to be on it. Clerk v. Blackstock, Holt's N. P. C., 474. Gardner v. Walsh, 5 E. & B., 83. 157. A person who sues upon an altered bill will be required to prove the circumstances of the alteration; and if he cannot, it is a question for the jury. Johnson v. Duke of Marlborough, 2 Stark., 313. Henman v. Dickinson, 5 Bing., 183. Knight v. Clements, 8 A. & E., 215. Bishop v. Chambre, 1 M. & Mal., 116. Disbrowe v. Wetherby, 6 C. & P., 758. Taylor v. Moseley, 6 C. & P., 273. On Signing by Procuration. 158. It is very common for persons to authorise others to draw, accept, or indorse and negotiate bills for them, and such signing is called-signing by procuration. As the agent is the mere hand which performs the duty, persons. may sign by procuration who have no capacity in their own right to contract, such as infants, married women, persons attainted, or, in fact, labouring any disqualification. Co. Litt., 52a. 159. No particular form is necessary to convey this authority, either verbal or written. But any one who takes a bill drawn, accepted, or indorsed by procuration, should make inquiry whether or not the authority has been properly followed. Alexander v. Mackenzie, 6 C. B., 766. Attwood v. Munnings, 7 B. & C., 278. 160. General authority to transact business does not cary with it powers to negotiate bills: but if the agent gives notice that he is acting as agent, and the principal afterwards adopts his acts, he will be bound by them. Saunderson v. Griffiths, 5 B. & C., 909. Vere v. Ashby, 10 B. & C., 288. Wilson v. Tummon, 6 M. & G., 236. Ancona v. Marks, 7 161. Special authorities will be construed strictly: but if an agent has been in the habit of negotiating bills for his principal, or other person connected with him in business, and he has adopted this person's acts, he will be bound by them. Barber v. Gingell, 3 Esp., 60. Llewellyn v. Winckworth, 13 M. & W., 598. Cash v. Taylor, Ll. & Web., M. C., 178. Prescott v. Flinn, 9 Bing., 19. 162. An agent's authority will be presumed to continue until notice is given of its termination. Such notice as regards strangers must be given in The Gazette, and to customers and correspondents by individual communication. 163. An agent who wishes to avoid personal liability, must either sign his principal's name only; or expressly state on the face of the instrument that he signs as agent. 164. Evidence cannot be received to charge a principal who is not named on the face of the bill or note (a): nor to discharge an agent who signs it in his own name (b). (a) Leadbitter v. Farrow, 5 M. & S., 349. Bult v. Morrell, 12 A. & E., 750. Edmunds v. Bushell, 35 L. J., Q. B., 91. (b) Higgins v. Senior, 8 M. & W., 834. 165. Where an agent, being duly authorised, expressly states on the face of the instrument that he merely signs it by procuration, for a principal, he will not be bound. But if in any case whatever he signs it without authority, he, and he only, will be personally liable; and his representatives as well. Lee v. Zagury, 8 Taunt., 114. Leadbitter v. Farrow, 5 M. & S., 345. Sowerby v. Butcher; Alexander v. Sizer, L. R., 4 Ex., 105. Goupy v. Harden, 7 Taunt., 160. Lefevre v. Lloyd, 5 Taunt., 749. Thomas v. Bishop, 2 Stra., 955. Rew v. Pettet, 1 A. & E., 196. Mare v. Charles, 5 E. & B., 978. Lewis v. Nicholson, 18 Q. B., 509. Randall v. Tummen, 18 C. B., 786. Collen v. Wright, 7 E. & B., 301. Kelner v. Baxter, L. R., 2 C. P., 174. Scott v. Lord Ebury, L. R., 2 C. P., 255. Polhill v. Walter, 3 B. & Ad., 114. 166. In ordinary trading partnerships each member of the firm may bind it by bills. But he must use the name of the firm, or one which it is sometimes known by. Dormant or secret partners, and also ostensible partners, or persons who hold themselves out as partners, are also bound. Pinckney v. Hall, 1 Salk., 126. Lane v. Williams, 2 Vern., 277. 207. Swan v. Steele, 7 East., 210. Ridley v. Taylor, 13 East., 175. Gurney 167. If he does not sign the name of the firm it will not be bound. Faith v. Richmond, 11 A. & E., 339. 61. Emly v. Lye, 15 East, 7. Kirk v. Blurton, 9 M. & Ex parte Emly, 1 Rose, 168. But a member of a non-trading partnership cannot bind it by bills: unless authority may be inferred. Dickinson v. Valpy, 10 B. & C., 128. Brown v. Byers, 16 M. & W., 252. Thicknesse v. Bromilow, 2 Cr. & J., 425. Greenslade v. Dewar, 7 B. & C., 635. Hedley v. Bainbridge, 3 Q. B., 316. Levy Forster v. Mackreth, L. R., 2 Ex., 69. v. Pyne, C. & Mar., 453. 169. Creditors carrying on a business to satisfy their debts out of the business are not partners. Wheatcroft v. Hickman, 9 C. B., N. S., 47. 170. 1. A person, however, who takes a bill or note from one partner, knowing, or having reasonable cause to suspect, that it is contrary to the consent of the other partners, cannot sue them (a). 2. And the indorsee of such bill taken in fraud of the partnership, must prove that he innocently gave value for it (b). Barber v. Backhouse, Jacaud v. (a) Heilbut v. Nevill, L. R., 5 C. P., 478. N. French, 12 Ex parte S., 278. 274. Lord Galway v. Mathew, 10 East., 264. Sherriff v. Wilkes, (b) Arden v. Sharpe, 2 Esp., 524. Wells v. Masterman, 2 Esp., 731. Hogg v. Skeen, 34 L. J., C. P., 153. Ridley v. Taylor, 13 East., 175. Sutton v. Gregory, 2 Peake, 150. 171. If the same person, a partner in two firms of the same name, negotiates a bill in the common name of the firms, the holder may sue either. Baker v. Charlton, Peake, 80. Swan v. Steel, 7 East., 210. 172. Dissolution of partnership should be notified in The Gazette, which will avail against persons who have had no dealings with the firm but all customers and correspondents should receive individual notice of dissolution; otherwise ex-partners may still bind the firm to parties who have had no notice of the fact. Heath v. Sansom, 4 B. & Ald., 172. Booth v. Quin, 7 Price, 193. Graham v. Hope, Peake, 154. Newsome v. Coles, 2 Camp., 617. Williams v. Keats, 2 Stark., 173. The change of the names on the cheques of a firm of bankers is a sufficient notice to their customers of a change in the firm. Barfoot v. Goodhall, 3 Camp., 147. 174. After a dissolution of partnership the members are separate individuals, and, therefore, all must join in signing bills (a). Unless they give authority to one of their number to sign for them (b). (a) Abel v. Sutton, 3 Esp., 108. Kilgorn v. Finlayson, 1 H. Bla., 155. (b) Smith v. Winter, 4 M. & W., 454. On the Transfer of Bills and Notes. 175. All Bills and Notes are now transferable or negotiable without being made payable to the payee, "or bearer," or "order." 36 & 37 Vict. (1873), c. 66, s. 26, § 6, 11. If, however, the words "or order" are inserted, they can only be transferred by the payee's indorsement. Signature and delivery constitute indorsement. § 5, 1, supra. 176. An indorsement may either be in blank; or special or in full. An indorsement in blank is when the indorser simply writes his name, usually, but not necessarily (1), on the back of the instrument, and delivers it to the indorsee. Such an indorsement makes the bill or note payable to bearer (a). The delivery may be either actual or constructive, as where the indorser notifies to the indorsee that he has indorsed the bill to him, but yet retains it in his own possession. (a) Peacock v. Rhodes, 2 Doug., 633. Francis v. Mott, cited in preceding case. Ord v. Portal, 3 Camp., 239. Low v. Copestake, Machell v. Kinnear, 1 Stark., 499. 3 C. & P., 300. (1) Rex v. Bigg, 1 Stra., 18. Ex parte Yates, 27 L. J., Bkcy., 9. 177. A special indorsement, or an indorsement in full, is where the instrument is indorsed by name to some specific person. The special indorsee can then only transfer it by indorsement: and this he may do whether it is merely indorsed to him, or to him " or order." Moore v. Manning, Com., 311. Acheson v. Fountain, 1 Stra., 557. Edie v. East India Co., 2 Burr., 1216. Cunliffe v. Whitehead, 5 Scott, 31. Gay v. Lander, 6 C. B., 336. 178. A bill once indorsed in blank, and afterwards indorsed in full, is payable to bearer as regards all the parties before the special indorser: but as against the special indorser title must be made through his indorsee. Smith v. Clarke, 1 Peake, N. P. C., 295. Leonard v. Wilson, 2 Cr. & M., 589. Walker v. Macdonald, 2 Ex., 527. 179. There may be any number of indorsements on a bill or note; and if there is not room for them on the original instrument, an additional piece of paper may be added to it-called an allonge-which requires no stamp. 180. A misspelling does not necessarily avoid an indorsement. Leonard v. Wilson, 2 Cr. & M., 589. 181. Every indorser is in the nature of a new drawer. Penny v. Innes, 1 C. M. & R., 441. Allen v. Walker, 2 M. & W., 317. 182. He contracts that if the drawee does not at maturity pay the bill, he will, on receiving due notice of dishonour, pay the holder the sum which the drawee ought to have paid together with such damages as the law allows as an indemnity. Suse v. Pompe, 8 C. B., N. S., 538. 183. A person who accepts or indorses a blank bill or note is liable for any amount the stamp will cover. Russell v. Langstaffe, 2 Doug., 514. 97. Pasmore v. North, 13 East., 517. Usher v. Dauncy, 4 Camp., Snaith v. Mingay, 1 M. & S., 87. Cruchley v. Clarance, 2 M. & S., 90. Collis v. Emet, 1 H. 184. An indorser admits the signature and capacity of every prior party (a), but he does not warrant them (b). (a) Lambert v. Pack, 1 Salk., 127. Williams v. Seagrave, 2 Barnard., 82. Crichlow v. Parry, 2 Camp., 182. Free v. Hawkins, Holt., N. P. C., 550. Macgregor v. Rhodes, 25 L. J., Q. B., 318. (b) East India Co. v. Tritton, 3 B. & C., 280. 185. If two persons not partners are the payees of a bill or note, both must indorse. Carvick v. Vickery, 2 Doug., 653n. |