( 192 )
PUNCHIHAMI v. WEERARATNE.C. R.,, Oalle, 3,329.
Partnership—Right of one partner to hind partnership property afterdissolution—Right to sign the firm’s name—Indorsement of pro-missory note by one partner after death of co-partner.
Where a promissory note made by defendant in favour of “ J, C &Co.,” consisting of two partners J & C, was endorsed by C in hisown name after the death of J, and consequently after the disso-lution of the partnership,—Held, that such endorsement to plaintiffon the part of the only surviving partner was good, and entitledplaintiff to sue the maker.
LAINTIFF sued defendant as the maker of a promissorynote in favour of one Janis de Silva and Carolis, who had
traded in partnership under the name and style of Janis,. Carolis& Co.
Plaintiff alleged that she was the widow of Punchihami, towhom the note was endorsed by Carolis after the death of hispartner Janis. She claimed Rs. 34'37.
The Commissioner found as follows : “ The note is not properly“ endorsed, even if the surviving partner has power to endorse. I
“ presume he has that power The promissory note is made
“ in favour of ‘ Messrs. Janis, Carolis & Co., or order.’ It is not“ endorsed by that firm, or by any person claiming to have power“ to sign on behalf of the firm. It is endorsed merely with the“ name of the surviving partner, and it does not appear whether he“ negotiated this note in satisfaction of a private debt or of a debt
“ of thefirm Ihold that the note is notproperly endorsed,
“ and dismiss the claim with costs.”•.
On appeal, Blaze, for appellant.
11th September, 1895. Browne, A.J.—
One Janis de Silva, plaintiff’s deceased husband, and CarolisPerera were partners, trading under the firm and style of Janis,Carolis & Co. Defendant, during the continuance of the partner-ship, made and granted to the partnership the promissory notesued upon. After the death of plaintiff’s husband, and conse-quently after the dissolution of the partnership, Carolis endorsedthe note to the plaintiff. The Commissioner in his judgmentstates: “ It is endorsed merely with the name of a surviving“ partner,” and he holds that the note was not properly endorsed.This issue as to the mode in which a surviving partner shouldendorse was not .raised by the answer or at the trial.
( 193 )
I do not hold with the Commissioner thereon. The partnership 1885,was dissolved. “ If a bill is sent into circulation after the dissolu-“ tion of the partnership, all the partners must join the endorse* Bbowke,A. J“ ment,” i.e., must endorse their personal names thereon, for “ one“ by putting the partnership name cannot bind the rest,” and “ the“ moment the partnership ceases the partners become distinct“ persons, and if they send any securities which did belong to the“ partnership into the world, all must join in doing so.” (Abel v.
Sultan, 3 Esp. 108.) Here the one surviving partner endorsed,and it appears to me that he could not at a time subsequent to thedissolution of the period during which he had right to use thepartnership name and bind the firm have endorsed the old firmname, and thereby bound the estate of the original partnership oraf his deceased partner, and that he could only endorse his ownname as the surviving partner.
I hold the endorsement was regular, and remit the action fortrial. Costs of the lower Court will be costs in the cause. Therewill be no costs in appeal.
PUNCHIHAMI v. WEERARATNE