Kathiresa Chetty V. Doresamy Et Al.,

Present :    De Sampayo J. and Schneider A.J.   1921.

KATHIRESA CHETTY v. DORESAMY et al.

445-D. C. Colombo, 1,437.

Cheque signed by proprietor and accountant of a business carried on under a firm name-firm name appearing in rubber stamp on the cheque- Letters "Acct." under accountant's signature.-Is accountant personally liable f-Bill of Exchange Act, a. 26.

The first defendant was the proprietor of a business carried on under the name of " Indo-Ceylon Trading Co." The second defendant was the accountant. Over the signature of the first defendant were in rubber stamp the words " Indo-Ceylon Trading Co.," and below the signature of the second defendant were the letters "Acct." (meaning accountant). The second defendant ' contended that he was not personally liable, as he signed only in his representative capacity as accountant.

Held, that he was personally liable.

THE facts appear from the judgment of the District Judge (W. Wadsworth, Esq.):-

This is an action by the payee of a cheque against the drawers, the two defendants. The cheque was duly presented at the Bank, but was dishonoured. The first defendant did not appear and judgment was entered against him. The second defendant, while admitting that he signed the cheque, states that he is not personally liable as he signed only as an officer of the firm whose sole proprietor was the first defendant.

The question raised is a very important one. The first defendant was carrying on business under the name of " The Indo-Ceylon Trading Company." The second defendant was the accountant of the company. He was not a partner, and had no personal interest in the company. The company had an account in the bank. For the purpose of operating on the bank account, the signatures of the first defendant and of the second defendant were placed on the cheque as follows :-

THE INDO-CEYLON TRADING CO.,
N. Ponnudurai,                                                                                                        R. Doreswamy,
_________Acct.                                                                                                             _________

The bank would honour the cheques only if they were signed as above. The cheque sued upon was signed as above, but was dishonoured when presented. There is no question that plaintiff paid consideration for the cheque, although defendant says he himself did not receive the consideration.

The question is: Is second defendant personally liable on the cheque ? At first one is inclined to the view that he is not. He is only a paid servant of the first defendant, or rather of the Indo-Ceylon Company. He has signed as accountant, and has shown on the face of the cheque the capacity in which he signed. Can he be made personally liable ? This is probably the layman's view. The law, however, is different,

[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t88" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="88" adj="1800,10800" path="m,qx10800@0l10800@2qy21600@11,10800@3l10800@1qy,21600e" filled="f"> <v:formulas> <v:f eqn="val #0"/> <v:f eqn="sum 21600 0 #0"/> <v:f eqn="sum #1 0 #0"/> <v:f eqn="sum #1 #0 0"/> <v:f eqn="prod #0 9598 32768"/> <v:f eqn="sum 21600 0 @4"/> <v:f eqn="sum 21600 0 #1"/> <v:f eqn="min #1 @6"/> <v:f eqn="prod @7 1 2"/> <v:f eqn="prod #0 2 1"/> <v:f eqn="sum 21600 0 @9"/> <v:f eqn="val #1"/> </v:formulas> <v:path arrowok="t" o:connecttype="custom" o:connectlocs="0,0;21600,@11;0,21600" textboxrect="0,@4,7637,@5"/> <v:handles> <v:h position="center,#0" yrange="0,@8"/> <v:h position="bottomRight,#1" yrange="@9,@10"/> </v:handles> </v:shapetype><v:shape id="_x0000_s1025" type="#_x0000_

Click Here to Read the rest of this document