( 4 )
Present: Lascelles C.J. and Middleton J'.PERERA v. MEISSA NONA et al.267—D. C. Kalutara, 4,514.
Promissory note—Authority to recover amount due on a note contained ina separate piece of paper—No endorsement—Bills of ExchangeAct, s. 32.
The payee of a note authorized the plaintiff to collect the amountdue on it by a writing on a separate sheet of paper, which was notaffixed to the note in any permanent manner.
Held, that the plaintiff was not an endorsee of the note.
" There is no endorsement in the bill itself, and it cannot r— amoment be contended that the slip of paper is an 1 allonge ’ withinthe technical meaning of the term, for on the note itself there isroom for any number Of endorsements."
rpHE facts material to this report are set out in the judgment,
Bawa, for appellant.
van Langenberg, for respondents.
August 24, 1911. Lascelles C.J.—
• In this case the only question which arises is whether the plaintiffis entitled to sue as endorsee of the promissory note on which .theaction is brought. The promissory note is given in the usual form. .Th§ makers undertake on demand jointly and severally to pay
( 5 )
Messrs. Gordon Frazer & Co. or order, at No. 18, Upper Chatham 1911.street, Fort, Colombo, the sum of Rs. 500 for value received. The l A80BIXBgdate of the note is January 29, 1909. On January 26, 1911, C.J.Messrs. Gordon Frazer & Co. signed a writing on a separate sheet pereraViof paper in the following terms: " We hereby authorize the bearer, MeUsa NonaMr. A. J. Perera, of Kuda Waskaduwa in Kalutara South, to collecton oup behalf the amount of Rs. 500 due on the attached promissory-note signed by H. Hinny Appu and A. Kaitan Silva, dated January29, 1909, in our favour. ” This piece of paper, although alleged tobe attached to the promissory note, does not appear to have beenaffixed to it in any permanent manner. A. J. Perera now sueson the note as endorsee and has obtained judgment. From thisjudgment the defendants appeal on the ground that A. J. Pererais not the endorsee at all. Section 32 of the Bills of Exchange Actof 1882 is explicit. An endorsement m order to operate as anegotiation must comply with the following conditions, namely: —
It must be written on the bill itself and be signed by the
endorser. The simple signature of the endorser on thebill, without additional words, is sufficient.
An endorsement written on an " allonge, M or. on a “ copy ”
'of a bill issued or negotiated in a country where " copies ”are recognized, is deemed to be written on the bill itself.
Now, here there is no endorsement on the bill itself, and itcannot for a moment be contended—and it has not been contended—that the slip of paper is an “ allonge ” within the technical meaningof the term, for on the note itself there is room for. any number ofendorsements. It is clear that the plaintiff has no title to thenote by endorsement, and'that the appeal should be allowed, andthe action should be dismissed with costs. There is, of course,nothing in this decision which should or ought to prejudice therights of the payee on the promissory note.
agree. I think it is clear that section 32 of the Bills of ExchangeAct of 1882 is conclusive on the point.
PERERA v. MEISSA NONA et al