A PROMISSORY NOTE CASE.

Wanganui Chronicle, 27 August 1901, Page 2

A PROMISSORY NOTE CASE.

M.r. Justice Edwards delivered judgment! last week in a case of some interest and importance to merchants and bankers. Tho' facts were these: Messrs. Bunting and Louisson, of Palmerston North, sold certain stock to Mr. and Mrs. Awdry, it being agreed that part of the purchase money (£SO) should be paid by Mr. and Mrs. Awdry's note -at twelve monllhs, endorsed by a responsible person. Messrs. Bunting and Luui^on wrote out a promissory note for the amount and handed same to Mr. and Mrs. Awdry, who, without signing it. took it to one Ericssen to bo endorsed by him. Eric?sen signed his name on the back of the promissory note, intending to guarantee its payment ati one date. Mr. and Mrs. Awdry then signed the promissory note, and handed it to Messrs. Bunting and Louisson, who endorsed it "without recourse" above Mr. Ericssen's signature. The promissory note was not met by Mr. and. Mrs. Awdry when it* fell due, and Bunting and Louisson thereupon, after demanding payment, sued Ericssen in the District/ Court at Palmerston. The defence set up was that Ericssen Was not liable on the promissory note because it was nab eompletc and regular on the face of it when he endorsed it. (Sections 29 and 55—2--Bills of Exchange Act, 1883). Mr. District Judge Kettle over-ruled this objection and held •on tilie authority of Cook v. Fenton, 11 N.Z.L.R., 505. (1892), that Ericssen was liable. Ericssen appealed to the Supremo Court against the decision. In the argument of the appeal it was contendeu that Cook v. Fenton ought not to be followed since the English decision in Jenkins and i Son v. Coomber, L.R. 2, QJB. (1898), 168. ! After taking time to consider his decision, Mr. Justios Edwards upheld the decision of the District Judge, and dismissed the appeal with £10 10s costs. Mr. C, A. Lanelman (Palmerston North) appeared, for the appellant, and Mr. Dalziell (Wellington) for the respondent.