023-NLR-NLR-V-10-WAIRAVEN-CHETTY-v.-JUSSAN-SAIBO.pdf
( 118 )
1906.
November 19*
[Full Benoh.]
Present: Sir Joseph T. Hutchinson, Mr. Justice Wendt, andMr. Justice Middleton.
WAIRAVEN CHETTY v. JUSSAN SAIBO.
D. C.t Kandy, 16,908.
Promissory note—Signaturebyattorney—Form ofsignature—Custom—
Bills of Exchange Act, s. 96 (1).
Where a promissory note was signed as follows; “ MeeyannaKawanna DawdoKannySaibo's attorney Jana Mohammadu
Kanny Saibo, ” and it was contended that Dawdo Kanny Saibo wasnot liable on the note, but that the attorney was personally liableunder section 26(1) of the Bills of Exchange Act, the Supreme
Court directed the issue to be tried—Whether the signature wasin the form usually adopted in similar circumstances in Ceylonby an attorney in executing an instrument in the name of theprincipal.
T
HE plaintiff, the endorsee of a promissory note, sued thedefendant, the administrator of the late of the estate Meeyanna
Kawanna Dawdo Kanny Saibo, who, the plaintiff alleged, made thenote through his attorney Jana Mohammadu Kanny Saibo.
The note was signed thus: " Meeyanna Kawanna Dawdo KannySaibo's attorney Jana Mohammadu Kanny Saibu.”
The defendant contended that the signature did not bind DawdoKanny Saibo, his intestate, but that it bound the" attorneypersonally.
The District Judge (J. H. de Saram, Esq.), following the judg-ment of the majority of the Supreme Court in Carimjee Jafferjee v.Sebo (1), held that the signature bound Dawdo Kanny Saibo, andthat the defendant, as his administrator, was Jiable to pay theamount of the note.
The defendant appealed.
Walter Pereira, K. C., S.-G., for the defendant, appellant.
Van Langenberg, for the plaintiff, respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
19th November, 1906. Wendt J.—
It is impossible, as the record stands, to decide the question whetherDawdo Kanny Saibo is liable on the note sued upon, the parties notbeing agreed as to the exact significance-of the signature by which
(1) (1897) 2 N. L. R. 286.
( 11® }
plaintiff seeks to bind him. We therefore think the case should goback for trial of the following additional issue, viz., Is that signature in November is.,the form usually adopted in similar circumstances in Ceylon by anj
attorney in executing an instrument in the name of his principal?
In addition to any evidence which the parties may adduce uponthis issue, the District Judge will be at liberty to consider the-evidence already on record.
All costs hitherto incurred to be costs in the cause I
Sir J. T. Hutchinson C.J. and Middleton J. agreed.
Case remitted for further hearings
♦