( 350 )
VELLAYAPPA CHETTY v. SINNETAMBY et al.
D. C., KurunSgala, 612jM 420.Joint promissory note—Right to tut the pergonal legal representative of a deceasedmaker jointly with the surviving maker.
A personal legal representative of a deceased maker of a jointpromissory note cannot be sued jointly with the surviving maker.The only exception to this rule is the case of a partnership, whererecourse may be had against the estate of a deceased partner.
rpHE judgment of the Chief Justice recites fully the faoteof this case.
Wendt, for second and third defendants appellant.
Domhorat, for respondent._
4th July, 1894. Bonser, C.J.—This is an action on a promissory note, which was made by fourpersons in favour of the plaintiff. Three of these persons aredead, and the survivor is now sued, and with him four personswho are alleged to represent the estates of the deceased makers.
The District Judge has given judgment for the plaintiff asagainst all the defendants, who are Bued as representing the estatesof two of the deceased makers ; and the question arises whetherthey could properly be sued in thiB action. The promissory noteis a joint one, and not a joint and several one, and there is noquestion of partnership between the makers. Therefore, the solepoint for decision is, whether a personal legal representative ofa deceased maker of a joint promissory note can be sued jointlywith the surviving maker.
By the law of this Colony actions on promissory notes aregoverned by the law of England, and the law of England iB per-fectly clear. The law is stated clearly and concisely in William!on Executors, 7th edition, vol. 2, p. 1740, as follows “ Ir“the case of a joint contract, where several contract on the“ same part, if one of the parties die his executor or administrator“ iB at law discharged from all liability, and the survivor or sur-vivors alone can be sued. And if all the parties are dead, theexecutorB of the survivor is alone liable.”
That being the law of England it must be applied to this action.The only exception to the rule is thp case of a partnership,where recourse may be had against the estate of a deceasedpartner,but that exception does not apply to this case, and thereforethis action was wrongly framed, and no relief can be had asagainst the appellants.
( 351 )
The judgment of the District Court must be set aside with 1894.regard to the present appellants.Jitfy4.
Under the circumstances of this case, the order will be that Bonn, OJ.neither party shall get costs either in the District Court or inthis Court.
Withers, J.—I agree.
VELLAYAPPA CHETTY v. SINNETAMBY et al