Hébert v. La Banque Nationale

Hébert v. La Banque Nationale

The addition of the words as to interest was a material alteration amounting to a forgery; absent proof that Hébert made, authorized or assented to the alteration within the meaning of s.145 (or that Roy had authority as mandatary/partner), the altered note was void as to Hébert and the appeal must be allowed. A pure forgery cannot be ratified to create liability.

Citation
(1908) 40 SCR 458
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: J. Emilien Hébert; Respondent / Plaintiff: La Banque Nationale
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 June 1908
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (bills of Exchange) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgments below reversed (majority); costs to appellant.
Legal Topics
Material Alteration of Negotiable Instruments, Assent and Ratification, Mandate and Implied Authority, Liability of Indorser, Statutory Construction of Bills of Exchange Act
Source Language
English
Bills of Exchange Negotiable Instruments Commercial Law Partnership Law Forgery Material Alteration of Negotiable Instruments Assent and Ratification Mandate and Implied Authority +2 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. Emilien Hébert

Appellant / Defendant

La Banque Nationale

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (bills of Exchange) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the addition of interest to the demand note was a material alteration amounting to forgery
  2. 2 Whether Roy had authority (actual or implied) as partner/mandatary to make the alteration binding on Hébert
  3. 3 Whether subsequent assent or ratification by Hébert could validate the altered instrument under section 145 of the Bills of Exchange Act

Ratio Decidendi

The addition of the words as to interest was a material alteration amounting to a forgery; absent proof that Hébert made, authorized or assented to the alteration within the meaning of s.145 (or that Roy had authority as mandatary/partner), the altered note was void as to Hébert and the appeal must be allowed. A pure forgery cannot be ratified to create liability.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgments below reversed (majority); costs to appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment of Court of King's Bench, Quebec and the Superior Court reversed