Leduc v. La Banque d'Hochelaga

Leduc v. La Banque d'Hochelaga

Majority: The instrument stamped "accepted" for a future date is not payable on demand and therefore is not a "cheque" under s.165; it must be treated as a bill of exchange; there was no evidence that acceptance of bills of exchange fell within the ordinary duties or ostensible authority of the branch manager, so the acceptance did not bind the bank and the appellant cannot recover.

Citation
[1926] SCR 76
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): J. F. R. Leduc; Respondent (defendant): La Banque D’Hochelaga
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 December 1925
Procedural Posture
Appeal (negotiable Instruments / Banking) / Supreme Court of Canada Final Decision on Appeal From Court of King’s Bench, Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Cheque Definition, Bills of Exchange Act S.165, Post Dated Acceptance, Branch Manager Apparent Authority, Holder in Due Course, Certification/acceptance of Cheques
Source Language
English
Banking Law Commercial Law Negotiable Instruments Cheque Definition Bills of Exchange Act S.165 Post Dated Acceptance Branch Manager Apparent Authority Holder in Due Course +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. F. R. Leduc

Appellant (plaintiff)

La Banque D’Hochelaga

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (negotiable Instruments / Banking) / Supreme Court of Canada Final Decision on Appeal From Court of King’s Bench, Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a post-dated instrument stamped "accepted" by a branch manager is a cheque "payable on demand" within s.165 of the Bills of Exchange Act
  2. 2 Whether acceptance by a local branch manager bound the bank where acceptance related to a bill of exchange or a post-dated instrument and the drawer had insufficient funds
  3. 3 Whether acceptance of a bill of exchange is within the ordinary duties/ostensible authority of a branch manager such that third parties may rely on it

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: The instrument stamped "accepted" for a future date is not payable on demand and therefore is not a "cheque" under s.165; it must be treated as a bill of exchange; there was no evidence that acceptance of bills of exchange fell within the ordinary duties or ostensible authority of the branch manager, so the acceptance did not bind the bank and the appellant cannot recover.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.