Page images
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

AVIET AGABEG AND WILLIAM F. BARRY,

OF THE INNER TEMPLE, ESQUIRES, BARRISTERS-AT-LAW.

LONDON:
WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,

27, FLEET STREET.

1884.

LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,

[blocks in formation]

PREFACE.

The codification of that important branch of the law which
relates to bills of exchange, promissory notes and cheques,
cannot fail to be of the utmost value to the mercantile
community.

The Authors have ventured to publish this work, con-
taining the above-mentioned code with explanatory notes of
decisions, &c., showing what the law was and is, in the hope
that such work may be of use both to the legal profession
and to the mercantile community.

Many recent Irish and American decisions have been
embodied herein, as well as an Act of the Council of the
Viceroy of India (which will be found in the Appendix),
passed in 1881, and containing provisions similar to those
of the English Statute or Code.

In the margin of the English Act is given a reference to
the corresponding section of the Indian Act, and vice versâ ;
so that the reader by perusing either Act may be able to
know the law of both countries.

As this work contains an Abstract of Enactments, a List
of Contents has been considered superfluous.

In conclusion, the Authors beg to acknowledge their
great indebtedness to the following works, viz., the late
Mr. Justice Byles' Treatise on the Law of Bills of Exchange ; Chalmers’ Digest of the Law of Bills of Exchange ; Chitty on Bills and Notes; Story on Bills and Notes ; Parsons on Bills; Grant's Treatise on the Law relating to Bankers and Banking Companies; Walker's Treatise on Banking Law.

A. A.
W. F. B.

TEMPLE,

March, 1884.

INDEX OF CASES.

PAGE

PAGE

Austin v. Mead . . . . . 131
Abbott v. Hendricks . . . . 16 Awde v. Dixon . . . . . 34
Abrey v. Crux . . . 16, 31, 104 | Ayrey v. Fearnsides . . . 11, 14
Ackerman v. Ehrensperger. . 99
Adams, In re. . . . . 163
Adansonia Fibre Company, In re 43

B.
Agra Bank v. Leighton . . 63, 102
Alderson v. Langdale 105, 107 Bacon v. Searles . . . . . 102
Aldous v. Cornwall . . . . 106 Bailey v. Bidwell . . . 55, 56
Alexander v. Burchfield. 124, 125 | - - v. Bodenham . . 123, 125

-.v. McKenzie . . 44, 45 - v. Harris . . . . . 54

v. Sizer . . . 45, 57 - v. Porter . . . . . 75
- v. Strong . . . . 92 Bain v. Gregory . . .

- v. Thomas . . . 11 Baker, Ex parte . . .
Allan v. Mawson. . . . 15, 19 - - v. Birch . . .
Allen v. Kemble . . . 116, 117

- -v. White . . . . . 53
- v. Miller . . . . 41, 45 Baldwin v. Richardson . . .
Amner v. Clarke . . . . . 17 Banbury v. Lisset . . .
Amory v. Merryweather. . . 157 Banco de Lima, Ex parte.
Ancher v. Bank of England. . 61 | Banner v. Johnston . . . . 16
Ancona v. Marks . . . . 44, 66 Barber v. Richards . .
Anderson v. Weston . . 16, 25, 65 | Bartlett v. Emery . . . . 38
Andrews v. Franklin. . 12, 13, 25 | Bartley v. Hedges . . . . 117
Appleton v. Campbell .. . 53 Bartrum v. Caddy . . . 63, 102
Arcedeckne, In re . . . . 145 Bass v. Clive . . . . . . 94
Armani v. Castrique . . . . 17 | Bateman v. Joseph . . . . 86
Armfield v. Allport . . . 30.33 -- -v. Kingston . . .
Arnold v. Cheque Bank. 103, 129, - - v. Mid-Wales Railway

130, 137 | Co. . . . . . . . . 40
Atna Bank v. Fourth National Bathe v. Taylor. . . 106, 107
Bank . . . . . . . 127 | Batley v. Catterall . . .

• 56
Attenborough v. Clarke . . . 48 Baxendale v. Bennett . . . 130

- v. McKenzie . 65, 102 | Beak v. Beak . . . . . . 132
Attwood v. Griffin . . . . 106 Beardsley v. Baldwin . . 10, 139

-- v. Munnings . . 44 | Beaumont v. Greathead . . . 144
Aubert v. Walsh . . . . . 131 Beck v. Robley . . . . 65, 102
Austin v. Bunyard . . . 16, 26 Beckett v. Addyman . . . 144

...

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »