This section of the book is from the "Canadian Banking Practice" book, by John T. P. Knight.
Question 55.— (1) A bank hands a dishonoured bill to their notary for noting, pending an expected settlement in a few days. (a) Should notary attach long declaration of noting in accordance with form A in the schedule to the Act, or simply endorse a memorandum of date and ledger-keeper's answer referred to in Smith's Merc. Law, 3rd Am. ed., p. 328? Maclaren, at p. 385, would suggest the short memo., but Smith says, this "per se is of no legal effect." (b) In either case should notary send notices to the parties on the bill?
(2) Is there any sufficient sanction for the practice of protesting a bill before 10 a.m. of the day succeeding the day of dishonour as the day of dishonour—that is to say, noting and protesting it, the bank having, say, overlooked it the day before ?
Answer.— (Not applicable in the Province of Quebec nor to foreign bills).
(1) We think it ought to be clearly understood that noting a dishonoured bill does not enable the bank to hold the parties to it liable pending an expected settlement in a few days. The parties are held liable only if notices of dishonour are sent in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
The practice in regard to " noting" usually amounts to the notary presenting the bill for payment on the day of maturity, and taking no further steps until the close of business the following day, by which time the note may be paid. If notice of dishonour is not given within the proper time the noting is of no effect. The only case in which evidence of the noting is needed is one where the presentment is made by one notary, and the protest has for any reason to be completed by another. Form A in the first schedule would be useful in such a case, but any memorandum showing that the bill had been presented at the place of payment on the day it matured, and the answer received, would be sufficient.
(2) We do not think there is such a practice, and if there were it would not be valid. The holder may give notice of dishonour on the day after the bill matures (sec. 49k), and he may employ a notary to give this notice on his behalf (sec. 49a), but if he invokes the aid of the notary for this purpose on the day after maturity that would not enable the latter to " protest" the bill. As the practice of the results of the notice of dishonour are identical with those following a protest, this involves no disadvantage. Similarly the effect of absence of evidence of noting, where for any reason the notary who presented the bill cannot complete his work, may be obviated by notice being given by the holder, or someone on his behalf, on the day following the date of maturity.