Vyramuttu V. Suduappu Et Al.

Present: Pereira J. and De Sampayo A.J.

VYRAMUTTU v. SUDUAPPU et al.

147-D. C. Batticaloa, 3,622.

Promissory note-Assignment by deed-Assignee not a holder in due course-Past consideration insufficient to support a note.

The assignment of a promissory note by deed is a sufficient transfer of the transferor's interest on the note. The assignment has not the full effect of an indorsement, because the plaintiff cannot be looked upon as a " holder in due course " of the note, unaffected by defences of payment, lack of consideration, &c, which the maker may have as against the assignor; but whatever defence the maker may maintain as against the assignor is also maintainable as against the assignee.

Under the Bills of Exchange Act (section 27) valuable consideration for a note may be constituted by (1) any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract, (2) an antecedent debt or liability. A past consideration is not a consideration which will support a simple contract.

THE facts appear sufficiently from the judgment.

J. Grenier, K.C., for the plaintiff, appellant.-The plaintiff is entitled to sue on the note by virtue of the deed o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document