Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Hatfield, [1967] N.B. Law News No. 119 (CA)

• Judge: Ritchie, West and Limerick, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
• Case Date: October 25, 1967
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: [1967] N.B. Law News No. 119 (CA)

CIBC v. Hatfield, [1967] N.B. Law News No. 119 (CA)

MLB Law News

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce  (a body corporate) (plaintiff/appellant) v. R. Dale Hatfield (defendant/respondent)

(Archives RS48/1967)

Indexed As: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Hatfield

New Brunswick Supreme Court

Appeal Division

Ritchie, West and Limerick, JJ.A.

October 25, 1967.

Summary:

Bills of Exchange Act -- Sections 54, 56, 145, 146 - Appeal by Bank, dismissed with costs from judgment dismissing Bank's action on a promissory note. The Promissory Note was signed by the Respondent, the proceeds of which note were intended to be applied against the Respondent's liability to the Bank on a cheque issued by the Respondent to Nobles Ltd., Moncton, N.B. for the purchase of a used car. Prior to the signing of the note, the Respondent requested payment be stopped on the cheque, after which the Bank without the knowledge or consent of the Respondent altered the place of payment of the cheque and told the Respondent that "something would have to be done about the cheque." Appeal Court held that Sec. 145 (1) and Sec. 146 (d) of Bills of Exchange Act voided the cheque when the Bank materially altered the cheque. Accordingly, value was not given by the Bank for the making of the Note and the Bank could not therefore become a holder in due course. See Sections 54 (1) and (1) (b) of the Bills of Exchange Act.

Appeal Court held that there was no consideration given by the Bank for the Note, and that

"While it is not necessary for the plaintiff Bank to establish consideration for the Note, yet, if the evidence discloses there is no consideration, the holder, not being a holder in due course for value, must fail in his action."

Court held that the Bank should have charged the cheque back to the account of Nobles Ltd. The Bank chose not to do so for the benefit of Nobles Ltd., either in the expectation of a loan to the Respondent being approved by the Bank or to enforce payment against the Respondent in the Bank's name so that defences available to the Respondent against Nobles Ltd. could not be raised.

Counsel:

Allison Mills, for the appellant;

Paul Creaghan, for the respondent.

This case was heard before Ritchie, West and Limerick, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Supreme Court, Appeal Division.

On October 25, 1967, Limerick, J.A., delivered the following decision for the Court.