The following alterations have been held not to be material :

13. Inserting the word "months" where inadvertently omitted Laine v. Clarke, R. L. 450 (1871).

14. As regards the maker, giving the note a later date: Canadian Investment Co. v. Brown, 19 R. L. 364 (1890); but now see sub-section 2, supra.

15. The maker of an accommodation note issued in June, dated it "6th, 1875," without a month. June 6th was a Sunday. The payee made the date June 8th. Held, that the note was not voided Merchants' Bank v. Stirling, 13 N. S. (1 R. & G.) 439 (1880); but now see sub-section 2, supra.

16. A memorandum at the foot declaring the note to be payable at a particular place: Cunard v. Tozer, 4 N. B. (2 Kerr) 365 (1844).

17. Adding "or order": Kershaw v. Cox, 3 Esp. 246 (1800); Byrom v. Thompson, 11 A. & E. 31 (1839).

18. Changing the name of the drawees from S. C. & Co. to S. & C., their proper firm name: Farquhar v. Southey, 1 M. & M. 14 (1826).

19. Adding "on demand," where no due time was mentioned: Aldous v. Cornwell, L. R. 3 Q. B. 573 (1868).

20. Adding "for the Bank of, etc." to the signature of the cashier when he had in fact signed for the bank: Folger v. Chase, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 63 (1836).

21. Inserting the dollar mark before the numerals: Houghton v. Francis, 29 Ill. 244 (1862).

22. Correcting a name incorrectly written: Cole v. Hills, 44 N. H. 227 (1863); Desby v. Thrall, 44 Vt. 413 (1872).

Fraudulently altering a bill or note is forgery. See ante p. 148.

§ 63.

$ 64.

Acceptance for honor

supra

protest.

ACCEPTANCE AND PAYMENT FOR HONOR.

Sections 64 to 67, inclusive, relate to this peculiar form of acceptance and payment, called also supra protest, because it can only take place after the bill has been protested for non-acceptance or non-payment as the case may be. In the French Code de Commerce it is called acceptance or payment by intervention. On account of the great facilities which parties to a bill now have for communicating with each other, it is seldom resorted to in the course of modern mercantile affairs.

64. Where a bill of exchange has been protested for dishonor by non-acceptance, or protested for better security, and is not overdue, any person, not being a party already liable thereon, may, with the consent of the holder, intervene and accept the bill supra protest, for the honor of any party liable thereon, or for the honor of the person for whose account the bill is drawn. Imp. Act, s. 65 (1); C. C. 2296.

It is not necessary that the protest should be extended before acceptance supra protest; it is sufficient that the bill has been noted: section 92.

As to protest for better security when the acceptor has failed, see section 51, s-s. 5 and ex parte Wackerbath, 5 Vesey, 574 (1800).

The holder may refuse to allow an acceptance supra protest; he may prefer an immediate recourse against the parties liable to him on the bill. An acceptance supra protest benefits only the party for whose honor it is made, and those subsequent to him. With the consent of the

holder there might also be acceptances supra protest for the § 64. honor of prior parties: 1 Daniel, § 525. The drawee may also change his mind and accept supra protest. If the acceptor supra protest should fail, there might be a second acceptance, after a protest for better security. In Quebec, under the Code, an acceptor was bound to give notice without delay to the party for whose benefit he accepted, and to the other parties liable to him on the bill: C. C. 2297. This is not now required.

The acceptance for honor is conditional upon non-payment by the drawee. The bill must still be presented at maturity to the drawee, and protested for non-payment before being presented to the acceptor for honor, who is in the position of a surety, rather than as being primarily liable sections 66, 67, s-s. 5.

ILLUSTRATIONS.

1. A defendant cannot be charged as an acceptor of a bill that has already been accepted, though conditionally, by the drawee Spalding v. McKay, 5 U. C. O. S. 656 (1838).

2. Originally it was not necessary to protest a bill before an acceptance for honor: Mutford v. Walcot, 1 Ld. Raym. 575 (1697).

3. A protest was subsequently held to be a necessary preliminary in accordance with the custom of merchants: Vandewall v. Tyrrell, 1 M. & M. 87 (1827).

tance in

2. A bill may be accepted for honor for part Accep only of the sum for which it is drawn. Imp. Act, part. s. 65 (2).

An acceptance for part only is a qualified acceptance: section 19, 2 (b); but does not require the assent of the drawer or indorsers: section 42, s-s. 2. Where a foreign bill has been accepted as to part, it must be protested as to the balance: ibid.

§ 64.

3. An acceptance for honor supra protest, in Must be in order to be valid, must

writing.

And signed.

For whose honor.

Computa

tion of

time.

(a.) Be written on the bill, and indicate that it is an acceptance for honor;

(b.) Be signed by the acceptor for honor: Imp. Act, s. 65 (3).

The usual form of such an acceptance is "accepted for honor," "accepted supra protest," or more frequently simply, "accepted S. P.," with the signature of the acceptor, and if not accepted for the honor of the drawer, with a designation of the party for whose honor it is made. Formerly a notarial "act of honor" was necessary as in the case of a payment for honor. Brooks' Notary, 4th Ed. 93; Mitchell v. Baring, 10 B. & C. 4 (1829); Gazzam v. Armstrong, 3 Dana, 554 (1835); section 68, s-s., 3; but this is not required by the Act. As to the requirements of an ordinary acceptance, see section 17.

4. Where an acceptance for honor does not expressly state for whose honor it is made, it is deemed to be an acceptance for the honor of the drawer:

5. Where a bill payable after sight is accepted for honor, its maturity is calculated from the date of protesting for non-acceptance, and not from the date of the acceptance for honor: Imp. Act, s. 54 (4) (5).

Sub-section 5 is copied from the Imperial Act with the single substitution of the word "protesting" for "noting," which really makes no change: section 92. In order to make it harmonize with section 11, s-s. 1 (a), the words "at sight or" should have been inserted as has been done in

sections 12, 18, and 40 by the amending Act of 1891. It § 64. is likely, however, that the Courts will interpret it as if the change had been made (see section 14, s-s. 4); although the former rule was to calculate the maturity from the date of the acceptance and not of the protest: Williams v. Germaine, 7 B. & C. at p. 471 (1827).

of acceptor

for honor.

65. The acceptor for honor of a bill by accept-Liability ing it engages that he will, on due presentment, pay the bill according to the tenor of his acceptance, if it is not paid by the drawee, provided it has been duly presented for payment and protested for non-payment, and that he receives notice of these facts: Imp. Act, s. 66 (1); C. C. 2296.

The acceptor for honor is only secondarily liable on the bill. It is sufficient that the bill be noted for protest, the formal protest may be extended subsequently: section 51, s-s. 4, and section 92. The reason for requiring a presentation for payment to the drawee at maturity, is that he may in the meantime have received effects or instructions that may lead him to pay the bill: Hoare v. Cazenove, 16 East, 398 (1812). If a place of payment is specified in the bill it should be presented there: section 45, s-s. 2 (d) (1).

In Quebec under the Code the acceptor for honor was bound to give notice of his acceptance without delay to the party for whose honor he accepted, and to the other parties. who might be liable to him on the bill: C. C. 2297. This is no longer necessary.

liable.

2. The acceptor for honor is liable to the holder To whom and to all parties to the bill subsequent to the party for whose honor he has accepted. Imp. Act, s, 66 (2).

M'C.B.E.A.-24