CLAIM UNDER A BILL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18571, 1 December 1923, Page 13

CLAIM UNDER A BILL.

METHOD OF ENDORSEMENT.

SAID TO BE INCOMPLETE.

HIGHLY TECHNICAL POINT.

' An action . in respect of a promissory note was heard by Mr. Justice Stringer in the, Supreme Court yesterday. The plaintiffs were- Alfred Buckland and Sons, Ltd. (Mr. Beckerleg). They sought to recover from Eliza Rathbone Wilson, administratrix in the estate of Harry Speer Wilson, i deceased (Mr. R. McVeagh and Mr. Reyburn), and from S. E. "Vaile, a contractor, of Whangarei, £229 7s, the amount of a promissory note, made by Vaile in favour of Buckland and Sons, or order, on November 18, 1915, payable nine months after date, and endorsed by deceased. Mr. Beckerleg' said that since the action was commenced Vaile had been adjudged bankrupt. The payees of the bill at the time it was executed were Alfred Buckland and Sons, then a private partnership, whose affairs had since been taken over by a private company. The deceased, Wilson, instructed plaintiffs to hold a clearance sale on his behalf, and suggested that credit be given to Vaile, who desired to purchase at the sale. Bucklands refused, and Wilson then agreed to be responsible for the payment of the account, and said he would get a promissory note from Vaile and would endorse it. At the sale Vaile made purchases to the extent of about £216. Vaile signed the note. Waters, the acountant to Bucklands, made an endorsement across the stamp, and counsel contended that this was a full endorsement to the payees. Counsel said he had taken the rather desperate action of obtaining an endorse- ; ment that morning by Malcolm Buckland, who was a partner in the original partnership and was now a director and shareholder in the present plaintiff company. Mr. McVeagh submitted plaintiffs were not entitled to recover, and in support of his contention quoted from numerous authorises. The bill, he said, was made bv Vaile in favour of Buckland and -Sons. It was then endorsed by Wilson, and at the commencement of the action it bore no other endorsement. His Honor.: Except the signature on the front. Mr. McVeagh said he did not know whether fhat point was seriously contended. He submitted that was to cancel the stamp. The method employed wis always the same, and that was to put the name on the back. The bill came before the Court) incomplete at the commencement of the action. Plaintiff, he submitted, had no title to the bill. The note was drawn in favour of Buckland and Sons, payable to their, order, and. until that morning it had not? been endorsed by Bucklands. He contended that after a laps© of six or seven years the endorsement made that morning had not been made in reasonable time, and the mandate there was a mandate had lapsed. His Honor said Che defence raised was highly technical.. He reserved hia< decision.