Jayawardena V. Rahaiman Lebbe

 
 

1919   [Full Bench.]

Present : De Sampayo J., Schneider A.J., and Loos A.J.

JAYAWARDENA v. RAHAIMAN LEBBE.

114- C. R. Gampola, 3,539.

Promissory     note     payable     on     demand  - Payment - Negotiation     after payment-Bills of Exchange Act, ss. 36  (1) and 59  (1).

When   a   promissory, note   payable   on   demand  is   paid   by   the   maker, it   ceases   to   be  a   note.   Negotiation   after   the   date   of   payment   does not give any right to the endorsee to sue on it.

THE facts are set out in the judgment.


Bartholomeusz, for plaintiff, appellant.-If the law be as laid down in Tenna v. Balaya,1[1 (1908) 12 N. L. R. 27.] it would seriously affect the negotiability of promissory notes. Then payment unknown to the endorsee would be a defence. It is the duty of the holder to deliver the bill when he is paid (section 52 (4), Bills of Exchange Act, 1882). When the maker does not get it back, he must suffer the consequences.

Section 31 (1) enacts that a paid bill is not negotiable. But if a third party takes a bill not overdue without any notice of any defect in the title, he is a holder in due course

Click Here to Read the rest of this document