BOOK REVIEWS.

MacMurchy and Denison's Canadian Railway Cases.-A selection of cases affecting railways recently decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the Supreme and the Exchequer Courts of Canada, and the Courts of the Provinces of Canada, with notes and comments, by Angus MacMurchy and Shirley Denison, of Osgoode Hall, Toronto, Barristers-at-law. Volume 1: Toronto: The Canada Law Book Co.: 1902.

This work will be found of great practical value to the active practitioner in the Courts throughout Canada.

It covers substantially the heads under which on circuit. most railway cases range themselves.

The most fruitful source of litigation, and the one in which solicitors are oftenest consulted, so far as railways are concerned, is:

Injuries at railway crossings. Upon examination of the cases collected upon this subject, one is struck with the completeness with which the compilers have covered the ground. No counsel could usefully add anything to the collection made, either upon the various ways in which the plaintiff can frame his case to cover neglect of the company, or upon the manner in which he can utilize such alleged neglect as a shield for his own admitted neglect to use his senses of sight and hearing. The inclusion of the Quebec authority, Girouard v. Canadian Pacific R. W. Co., at p. 343, is, perhaps, a mistake, as it gives an entirely erroneous view of railway law, which had crept into Quebec jurisprudence, and which the decision of Roy v. Canadian Pacific R. W. Co., by the Privy Council, reported at p. 196, has corrected. However, the case shews an ingenious endeavour to throw the whole question of what is or is not the duty of the railway company into the hands of the jury and leave the company to the " vicarious sympathy of the twelve." Whatever the rules which bind the company are, they should be settled by statute or rules framed under ss. 214-222 of the Railway Act, and no rule which might be so passed by Parliament or the Governor-in-Council could be so oppressive as the uncertainty of what might or might not

be considered proper by twelve jurors utterly ignorant of the considerations involved in the question of what is proper railway practice.

The next most canvassed liability in railway practice is, perhaps, that towards the employees, and here again the text contains practically every case required for actual practice. No doubt the authors will in future supplement the present work, and in doing so will add certain decisions on the construction of the Railway Act itself, under the general heading of "Working of the Railway.”

The cases on the subject of the liability of railway companies as carriers, regulated as it is by s. 246, are (with the exception of Macdonald v. Grand Trunk R. W. Co., 31 O. R. 663, which seems to have been overlooked) all embraced. These are particularly valuable for the general practitioner, who is most apt to be led utterly astray by reading either English or American text books, unless he bears well in mind the distinctions between the cases under the English Railway and Canal Traffic Act, the American so-called “Public Policy" type of decision, and the decisions under our own Act. This little collection of cases under our own Act will keep the practitioner on safer ground in this country than any other work we have seen.

On the subject of rights of passengers the text is well thought out, but we should like to have seen one or two leading cases on the rights involved in taking " Pullman " age, which is now often a very practical subject of advice, and one on which much confusing law exists.

pass

The farmer's rights in respect of cattle and horses injured by reason of defective fences and cattle-guards can be advised on in any respect by any person who will read the cases collected, and as this class of case is most often up in the Division Courts, where hitherto the variety of view reported as being entertained, has been most diverse, let us hope the decisions in future will, with this collection, be more consistent in different parts of the Province.

The other heads dealt with are farm crossings, jurisdiction of railway committee, fire claims, nuisances, compensation for property taken, bridges, etc., from which no case of practical value to the thorough understanding of the subject

treated, so far as our Railway Act is concerned, has been omitted.

The book is recommended to any member of the profession who is called upon to advise on or conduct a case against a railway company in Canada, as giving him substantially all the leading cases which are of practical value upon the subjects treated.

WALLACE NESBITT.

The Impeccancy of the King.-A Study of Sovereignty, by Charles Morse, D.C.L.

This brilliant essay, a part of which was printed in the October number of the Canadian Law Times last year, has been published in pamphlet form as part of Transactions No. 3 of the Ottawa Literary and Scientific Society.

The Madras Legal Companion.-Edited by P. Vencata Rau. Vizagapatam, India: May, 1902.

The third number of an enterprising monthly legal journal, full of strange law.

The Natal Law Quarterly.-Edited by Wm. T. Lee. Durban: June, 1902.

An excellent legal periodical.

American Law Review.-Edited by Seymour D. Thompson, St. Louis, and Leonard A. Jones, Boston. St. Louis, Mo. Review Publishing Co.: November-December, 1902.

This number contains, among other interesting articles, a capital paper by Judge McClain, of the Supreme Court of Iowa, on "The Evolution of the Judicial Opinion."

Harvard Law Review.-Cambridge: The University Press: December, 1902.

"A Statement of the Trust Problem," by Robert L. Raymond, is the title of the leading article in this number.

The Legal Diary for 1902.-Toronto: The Carswell Co., Limited.

A very useful book, containing much information, and large blank spaces for daily memoranda, monthly accounts, etc.

THE

CANADIAN LAW TIMES.

FEBRUARY, 1903.

A

NOTICE OF DISHONOUR.

NOTICE of dishonour must be given by or on behalf of

the holder, or on behalf of an indorser, or by an agent of the holder: Bills of Exchange Act, s. 49. The agent may give the notice in the name of his principal, or in his own name, and the holder need not be interested in the bill or note: s. 49, s.-s. 2. The expression "holder" means the payee or indorsee of a bill or note who is in possession of it, or the bearer thereof; a person to whom a bill is sent for collection is a holder: Allison v. Central Bank, 4 Allen N. B. 270.

If the notice is given on behalf of the holder, it enures for the benefit of all prior or subsequent parties to the bill: s. 49 (c); and if the indorser gives such notice it enures for the benefit of the holder and all indorsers subsequent to the party to whom the notice is given: s. 49 (d).

The notice may be in writing, or by personal communication, and in any terms that may identify the bill. It has been held in the United States that a notice by telephone is sufficient: Thompson v. Appleby (Kansas S. D. C. A., 1897), 48 Pac. R. 933. The difficulty of identifying the party spoken with makes such a method of communication dangerous. A telegraphic communication should also be sufficient and better than the telephone.

A letter with a notice of dishonour was forwarded in time to the wrong branch bank. Next day a telegram was sent to the proper branch, which sent off its notices in time. It was held that the bank had received due notice of dishonour. Collins, L.J., dissented, holding that for the purpose of notice

VOL. XXIII. C.L.T

4

of dishonour the branches of a bank must be regarded as distinct, that the written notice by the London bank, not having been sent to their principals, was ineffective, and could not be made effective by the telegram, which was out of time: Fielding v. Corry, [1898] 1 Q. B. 268.

Upon the same reasoning as the above decision a telegraphic notice of dishonour, which would reach the party entitled to notice as soon as a mailed notice, would be sufficient, although sent after the time such notice should have been posted. It is possible that the Court thought that, as the party to whom notice had been sent had not suffered by any laches of the holder, he had nothing to complain of. It is doubtful if this decision would be law in Canada, for the English Act says that the notice must be sent within a reasonable time (see English Act, s. 49, s.-s. 12); ours, not later than the next day after the dishonour of the bill.

For commercial purposes the English rule established by Fielding v. Corry is the best, for the party receives the notice quite as soon, if not sooner, than the mailed notice, and is not in any way damaged.

The return of the bill to the drawer is a sufficient notice to him (f). The return of the dishonoured bill to an indorser

is a sufficient notice to him.

A notice need not be signed, and an insufficiently written notice may be supplemented by an oral notice. A misdescription of the bill will not invalidate unless the party is in fact misled thereby. Describing the bill as payable at S. Bank, when it is payable at T. Bank: Bromage v. Vaughan, 9 Q. B. 608; a note as a bill of exchange: Stockman v. Parr, 11 M. & W. 809; transposing the names of the drawer and acceptor: Mellerish v. Rippen, 7 Ex. 578; describing acceptor by wrong name: Harpman v. Child, 1 F. & F. 652: may be sufficient.

And generally it may be stated that notices of dishonour are construed liberally: Chalmers, 158.

A notice may be given to an agent for his principal (h), but in the case where the agent represents two principals the Court has to be satisfied that when the agent received the notice he acquired the information under such circumstances