When this case came up before me, I was inclined to think thatthe case of Marikar v. Carolis,* which had been decided by a Benchof two Judges, was in conflict with the decision of Wendt J. in thecase of Tenna v. Balaya* but I entertain some doubt on that pointnow.
The point of law raised in this case has been very fully arguedbefore us, and I entirely agree with the judgments of my brothersDe Sampayo and Schneider that the language of sections 36 (1)and 59 (1) of the Bills of Exchange Act necessitates the dismissalof this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
1(1812) 8 Camp. 198.
(1838) 1 Per. A Dae. 207.
(1829) 9 B.& 0.130.
(1884) 231 J.<b Q. B. 281.5 (1913) 17 N. L. B. 89.
(1908) 11N. L. R. 27.