A Commentary on the Bills of Exchange Act 1882

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1904 edition. Excerpt: ... D. Moore, 1854, 3 E. & 2'Scholfield v. Londesborough, B. 683, 23 L.J. Q.B. 261, per Camped, per Lord Watson 1896, A.C. bell, C.J.; s. 55 (2 c); Thomson, 109. 543. 6 Git. 3 S. 97 (3); 1 Smith's L.C. 800; 7 1883, 11 Q.B.D. 84, 91. Edinburgh and Glasgow Bank v. not been altered, it would seem that notwithstanding S. section 97 (3 a) defences founded on the Stamp Acts should not be available against such an action. Yet in the case of Scholfield v. Londesborough,1 when in the Court of first instance it was pleaded that the stamp was exhausted, this defence was disposed of on the specialty that the bill, being an accommodation bill, was unissued at the date of the altera tion. If the view here suggested be unsound, the proviso must be of very limited application, and the holder in due course must generally rely for the whole amount of the bill upon the rule laid down in Burchfield v. Moore,2 as he must in any case for any sum paid by him for the bill above its original amount. It was said in Leeds Bank v. Walker3 that this proviso does not apply to Bank of England notes. But in Scotland such notes do not differ from other bank notes.4 8 Whether or not an alteration is material, is a question of law; it does not depend on the actual importance in the circumstances of the alteration in question.5 As to the legal test of materiality, it has been said that the addition to a bill of words which in no respect interfere with its legal operation, will not vitiate it.6 An alteration of an instrument may be material in the sense of interfering with its legal operation, though it does not affect the contract contained therein.7 But in the case of Suffell v. Bank of England, Brett, L.J., said: --" Any alteration of any instrument seems to me to be...