Back
NAGOOR PITCHE v. ANDRIS APPUHAMY
NLR32V232
1930
Present: Akbar J.
NAGOOR PITCHE v. ANDRIS APPUHAMY
174-C. R. Colombo, 55,190.
Promissory note-Drawn by A in
favour of B- Signature of C on back-Liability of C- Bills of Exchange Ordinance,
No. 25 of 1927, s. 58.
Where a promissory note was drawn by A in favour of B, and C signed the note on
the back,-
Held, that C was not liable on the note.
THIS
was an action to recover a sum of Rs. 250
with interest due on a promissory note given by one Singho Appu in favour of the
plaintiff. The plaint stated that the defendant had endorsed the note for
valuable consideration. The defendant denied liability on the ground that he had
received no consideration and that he signed the note only as a witness. The
following issue among others was raised : " In the circumstances in which the
note was made is the defendant liable as a joint and several maker? The
Commissioner of Requests gave judgment for the plaintiff.
N. E. Weerasooria (with him Amarasinghe), for defendant, appellant.-The
Commissioner has held that the appellant was not a joint-maker and is not liable
as a guarantor. If so, he is not liable at all. The bill has not been endorsed
by the payee. The endorsement by the appellant created no rights in the payee.
At the time of the endorsement the bill had not been delivered to the payee and
the payee never endorsed the bill. The respondent was not a holder in due
course-see Chalmer's Bills of Exchange, ss. 56, 84, and 88. The principles of
liability are discussed in the commentaries on the sections and the cases cited
clearly show that the appellant is not liable.
[AKBAR J.-Can you distinguish the case of Macdonald & Co. v. Nash & Co.[1
(1924) L. J. R., K. B. D. 93, p. 610.]
The facts are different. The
Court proceeded on section 20. On the construction of section 56 the majority of
the Judges took the view that no rights passed. Section 20 has no application to
the present case. Counsel also cited English and Empire Digest, vol. 6, s. 2101
; Lecaan v. Kirkman.1
Nadarajah, for plaintiff, respondents- Section 56 of the Bills of
Exchange Ordinance provides that a stranger who signs a bill incurs all the
liabilities of an endorser. It has been held by the learned Commissioner that
the appellant has signed the promissory note sued on with the intention of
becoming liable to the respondent. It is not open to the appellant to challenge
this finding of fact, as no appeal has been preferred against the findings of
fact. The reasoning of Lord Waston in Steele v. Mickinly 2 sets out the law
applicable in this case. The case of Macdonald & Co. v. Nash & Co. (supra) is in
support of appellant's liability. It is submitted that the respondent is a
holder in due course. The term " negotiation " would include the original issue
also. Section 30 (2) sets out who is to be deemed a holder in due course.
This is precisely a case contemplated by section 56 of Ordinance No. 25 of 1927.
The following authorities were also cited : Wilkinson v. Unwin,3 Glennier v.
Bruce Smith 4.
December 2, 1930. AKBAR J.-
In this action one Singho Appu by his promissory note marked P2 promised to pay
to the plaintiff or to his order a sum of Rs. 250 with interest and the
plaintiff stated in his plaint that the defendant endorsed the promissory note
for valuable consideration. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant had
paid a sum of Rs. 70 and he claimed the balance. The defendant on the other hand
denied his liability on the ground that he received no consideration and that he
signed only as a witness. Several issues were framed,
Foot notes
1 (1859) Jur. N. S. 17.
2 5 App. Cases, p. 754
3 (188l) 7 Q. B. D. 636.
4 (1908) 1 K. B. 263.
namely, whether the defendant signed the note as a witness or as an endorser,
and even if the defendant signed as an endorser whether he was liable and what
amount was due to the plaintiff. Further issues were framed but they are
imma
