024-NLR-NLR-V-23-KATHERESAN-CHETTY-v.-DORESAMY-et-al.pdf
( 93 )
Present: De Sampayo J. and Schneider A. J.KATHERESAN (HETTY v. DORESAMY et ah
445—D. C. Colombo, 1,437.
Cheque signed by proprietor of a business and by another with the word“accountant” added—Personal liability—Representative capacity.
ThB first defendant was the proprietor of the Indo-CeylonTrading Company. A cheqtie was signed by the first defendant*and above his signature in rubber stamp were the words “ Indo-Ceylon Trading Company.” The second defendant signed afterthe first defendant with the word 99.accountant ” underneath.
Reid, that the second defendant was also personally liable onthe cheque, as, although, he described himself as accountant, hehad not sufficiently indicated that he was signing for and onbehalf of the Company.
fJHE facts appear from the judgment.
Qarvin, for second defendant, appellant.
E. W. Jayatoardene (with him Reuneman), tor respondent.
September 9,1921. De Sampayo JT.—
The plaintiff as payee of a cheque drawn by the two defendantssued them in this action for the recovery of the amount. The firstdefendant, has not filed answer, and judgment has gone againsthim by aefegiit. But the second defendant contested the case onthe grousC that he was not personally liable on the cheque. Itappears that the first defendant was the proprietor of a business
1921
C94 )
1921.
Db SahpayoJ.
KathereaanOhetty v.Doreeamy
carried on in Ceylon under the name of “ Indo-Ceylon TradingCompany.” The cheque is signed by the first defendant, andabove his signature in rubber stamp are the words “ Indo-CeylonTrading Company.” The second defendant has also signed afterthe first defendant with the letters “ acct. ” underneath his signature.These letters, no doubt, is an abbreviation of the word “accountant.”The contention of the second defendant in the District Court andin this Courtis that he, on the face of the cheque, signed the chequein his representative capacity as “ accountant,” and is not personallyliable on the cheque. On this point we have to consider the effectof section 26 of the Bills of Exchange Act, which enacts as follows:“ Where a person signs a bill as drawer, indorser, or acceptor, andadds words to his signature, indicating that he signs for or onbehalf of the principal, or in a representative character, he is notpersonally liable thereon; but the mere addition to his signatureof words describing him as an agent, or as filling a representativecharacter, does not exempt him from personal liability.” Thequestion in this case is whether, in view of the form in which thesignature of the 3econd defendant appears, he could be said to haveindicated that he was signing for and on behalf of the Indo-CeylonTrading Company, or whether he did not merely give a descriptionof the position he held in the Company. It appears to be clear that,although he described himself as accountant, he did not therebysufficiently indicate that he was signing for and on behalf ofthe Company. Mr. Garvin, fo’r the second defendant-appellant,strenuously contended that the fact that themame of the Companywas stamped above both the signatures sufficiently indicated thatthe second defendant signed in his representative capacity asaccountant for and on behalf of the Company. This point wasdealt with by the learned District Judge, and he came to theconclusion that the stamping of the name of the Company did notmake any difference. Two cases were cited by him, and theyappear to be good authority for his decision, vizLandes v. Marcus1and Dutton v. Marsh? In the first of these cases two Directorsof a Limited Company drew a cheque, adding to their respectivesignatures the word “ Director.” In that case, as in this case, thecheque was stamped with the name of the Company, and yet itwas held that they were personally liable on the cheque. I thinkthe decision of the District Judge is right, and I would dismiss thisappeal, with costs.
Schneider A.J.—I agree. *
Appeal dismissed.
• (Ml)
* (1909) 26 T. L. B. 478.