Question 49. - (a) Is the form of note written below correct?

(b) Would a note endorsed in the same way but drawn in favour of a bank be a note sufficient in point of form to hold the endorsers if the bank had discounted the note?

(Note.) $1,000. Vancouver, B.C., Dec. 16th, 1918.

One month after date we promise to pay to the order of R. H. and 0. S. Jones the sum of one thousand dollars at the Bank of Montreal, here, for value received.

Jones Bros., Limited.

(Endorsement).

R. H. Jones. 0. S. Jones.

I hereby waive presentation, protest and notice of dishonour and guarantee payment of the within note.

R. H. Jones. O. S. Jones.

Answer. - (a) Yes, as to its face, except that the signatures of the officers authorized to sign for Jones Bros., Limited, should appear below the company's name. If it were the intention of the promissors to make it payable to the two individual payees, it is properly endorsed, but it would be preferable to name them separately on the face of the note as "R. H. Jones and 0. S. Jones." If "R. H. and 0. S. Jones" is a firm name, the note should be so endorsed, but if these parties constitute the firm, the note. as it stands, is, in effect, properly endorsed.

(b) Yes. (See section 131 of the Bills of Exchange Act).