National Bank of Commerce v. Yusuf Hussein Allidina, Civ. Case 48-D-68, 4/10/68, Georges C. J.

National Bank of Commerce v. Yusuf Hussein Allidina, Civ. Case 48-D-68, 4/10/68, Georges C. J.

The plaintiff, as a holder in due course, sued on a promissory not made by the defendant. The note was endorsed to the plaintiff and was dishonored when presented for payment. The plaintiff admitted that at the time of the endorsement the place of payment was blank. I had been filled in later without the consent of the defendant.

            Held: (1) The case did not fall within the material alterations specified in s. 64(2), Bills of Exchange Act, Cap. 215. It was not an “alteration of the place of payment” but an addition. (2) The second part of s. 64(2). Referring

To additions of places of payment, applies only to bills accepted generally. S. 90(3)(b) makes provisions as to acceptance inapplicable to promissory notes. (3) The list of material alterations in s. 64(2) is not exhaustive. (4) Although at common law, the alteration of a bill of exchange by adding the place of payment was a material alteration (Macintosh v. Hayden (1826) Ry & Mood. 362) there was a distinction made between bills and promissory notes, whose use in commerce and freedom of circulation was more restricted. The nature of the contract entered into by the maker is not changed, since if the addition had not been made, presentation would not have been needed to render the maker liable. (5) (obiter) Addition of a place of payment to a promissory not as between endorsees, was material alteration. Under s. 88(2) of the Act, presentation for payment is necessary to render an endorsee liable. (6) (obiter) s. 45 provides that where in a bill there is no place of payment specified, but the address of the drawee or an acceptor is given on the bill, the bill is properly presented there. That section also applies to promissory notes.