Singh v Singh and Another (Civ. Case No. 152 of 1937)
Singh v Singh and Another (Civ. Case No. 152 of 1937) [1938] EACA 210 (1 January 1938)
The court held that the plaintiff, though in possession of the promissory note, could not sue on it in his own name because the note was payable to order and had not been endorsed to him. The statutory definition of 'holder' requires that the person suing must be either the payee or endorsee in possession, or the bearer if the note is payable to bearer. Since the plaintiff had negotiated the note and it had been endorsed to another party, his rights as payee were extinguished. Mere possession, without endorsement, does not confer the right to sue. Furthermore, the court found that the causes…
Source excerpt
- Negotiable Instruments
- Promissory Notes
- Endorsement Requirements
- Merger Of Causes
- Holder In Due Course