Shephard, J.

1. It is objected that Rule 428 is ultra vires for the reason that it is in conflict with Section 69 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. But this is not so. The rule and the section proceed on different lines, the rule providing for cases in which the Judge is in doubt and not for cases covered by the section.

2. I am of opinion that as endorsee the plaintiff cannot sue on the note, but that as assignee of the actionable claim he may sue to enforce it. Accordingly I answer the question referred in the affirmative.

Bhashyam Ayyangar, J.

3. I concur with my learned colleague that the rule is not ultra vires. The plaintiff, one of the two joint payees of a negotiable promissory note payable on demand made by the defendant on 11th July 1889, sues the defendant for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 261-7-0, being the principal and interest due on the note. The plaintiff sues alone on the strength of the other joint payee V. Miligiri Rao having endorsed the notes in his favour on the 5th January 1900. The defendant takes the preliminary objection that the suit is not maintainable, as one of two joint payees cannot endorse the note, notwithstanding that the endorses is