Perera V. Meissa Nona Et Al.

Present: Lascelles C.J. and Middleton J.

PERERA v. MEISSA NONA et al.

267-D. C. Kalutara, 4,514.

Promissory note-Authority to recover amount due on a note contained in a separate piece of paper-No endorsement-Bills of Exchange Act, s. 32.

The payee of a note authorized the plaintiff to collect the amount due on it by a writing on a separate sheet of paper, which was not affixed to the note in any permanent manner.

Held, that the plaintiff was not an endorsee of the note.

" There is no endorsement in the bill itself, and it cannot for a moment be contended that the slip of paper is an ' allonge ' within the technical meaning of the term, for on the note itself there is room for any number of endorsements."

THE facts material to this report are set out in the judgment,

Bawa, for appellant.

van Langenberg, for respondents.

August 24, 1911. Lascelles C.J.-

In this case the only question which arises is whether the plaintiff is entitled to sue as endorsee of the promissory note on which the action is brought. The promissory note is given in the usual form. The makers undertake on demand jointly and severally to pay

Messrs. Gordon Frazer & Co. or order, at No. 18, Upper Chatham street, Fort, Colombo, the sum of Rs. 500 for value received. The date of the note is January 29, 1909. On January 26, 1911, Messrs. Gordon Frazer & Co. signed a writing on a separate sheet of paper in the following terms: "We hereby authorize the bearer, Mr. A. J. Perera, of Kuda Waskaduwa in Kalutara South, to collect on our behalf the amount of Rs. 500 due on the attached promissory note signed by H. Hinny Appu and A. Kaitan Silva, dated January 29, 1909, in our favour. " This piece of paper, although alleged to be attached to the promissory note, does not appear to have been affixed to it in any permanent manner. A. J. Perera now sues on the note as endorsee and has obtained judgment. From this judgment the defendants appeal on the ground that A. J. Perera is not the endorsee at all. Section 32 of the Bills of Exchange Act of 1882 is explicit. An endorsement in order to operate as a negotiation must comply with the following conditions, namely: -

(1) It must be written on the bill itself and be signed by the endorser. The simple signature of the endorser on the bill, without additional words, is sufficient.

(2) An endorsement written on an " allonge, " or, on a " copy of a bill issued or negotiated in a country where " copies " are recognized, is deemed to be written on the bill itself.

Now, here there is no endorsement on the bill itself, and it cannot for a moment be contended-and it has not been contended- that the slip of paper is an " allonge " within the technical meaning of the term, for on the note itself there is room for any number of endorsements. It is clear that the plaintiff has no title to the note by endorsement, and that the appeal should be allowed, and the action should be dismissed with costs. There is, of course, nothing in this decision which should or ought to prejudice the rights of the payee on the promissory note.

Middleton J.-

I agree. I think it is clear that section 82 of the Bills of Exchange Act of 1882 is conclusive on the point.

Appeal allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document