1918 Present : Ennis J. and Shaw J.

PETER v. SURIAPPERUMA.

453-D. C. Colombo, 46,566.

Promissory note-Payee not clearly indicated.

A document purporting to be a promissory note ran as follows: -

promissory Note, Rs. 1.500.

I . S . have this day borrowed and received a sum of Re. 1,500 from K. Therefore I. the said debtor S, do promise to repay the said sum on demand being made therefor by the said creditor 1 or his heirs, &C.

Held, that the note was not a promissory note, as the payee was not indicated with reasonable certainty.

THE facts are set out in the judgment.

A. St. V. Jayawardene, for the appellant.

Drieberg (with him P. H. B. Koch), for the respondent.

March 4, 1918. SHAW J.-

The plaintiff sues as indorsee of an instrument said to be a promissory note. The document is in the following terms: -

Promissory Note, Rs. 1,500.

On this 1st day of April 1914, at Wattala.

I, Simon Peris Suriapperuma, of Mulleriyawa, in the Adikari pattu of Hewagam korale, have this day borrowed and counted and received in full a sum of Rs. 1,500 of lawful money of Ceylon from P. S. Karunaratne, native doctor, of Warapalana, in the Meda pattu