TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1906 (9) TMI 2
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ff's favour, although he was the payee named in the note, in support of a plea that the note had been discharged by payment to the person really interested. The District Judge held the evidence admissible and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. In this Court there was* a difference of opinion, Subrahmania Aiyar, J., holding that the District Judge was right, while Davies, J., considered that the defendant was precluded by the terms of the Negotiable Instruments Act from denying the payee's right to sue. The question whether it is open to the defendant in a suit on a negotiable instrument to plead that the payee named in the instrument, or that indorsee as the case may be, is a mere benamidar and not entitled to sue is one of conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the same construction has been put upon these words in Calcutta in Sarat Chunder Dutt v. Kedar Nath Dass 2 C.W.N. 286, decided by Banerjee and Bampini, JJ., a case which is not referred to in the judgments of our learned brothers and does not seem to have been cited before them. It was there held on a consideration of the language of Section 8 that it was not open to the defendant in a suit by the indorsee on a negotiable instrument to set up that the indorsee was a mere benamidar,, and this Court has come to a similar conclusion but without discussing the language of Section 8 in Bojjamma v. Venkataramayya I.L.R. M. 30, and other cases to which we shall refer later. In connection with the words " entitled in his own name" in Section 8 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....strument, and we think that the decisions clearly established than an undisclosed principal could not be sued. In Miles Claim (1865) L.R. 1 Q.B. 97, Lord Justice James said that "it had always been the law in England that no body is liable upon a bill of exchange unless his name or the name of some partnership or body of persons of which he is one appears on the face or on the back of the bill," and Lord Justice Mellish shows that Edmunds v. Bushell (1865) L.R. 1 Q.B. 97 is not in any way opposed to this rule. Lindus v.Brawell (1848) 5 C.B. 583, where a husband acknowledged his wife's signature has been treated, we think rightly, as a case of signature by the husband in an assumed name, and does not warrant the proposition that an undis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ust be named or otherwise indicated therein with reasonable certainty." On the other hand, the non-liability of an undisclosed principal on a bill or note is expressly provided for by Section 23. 4. In America the new Negotiable Instruments Law, printed in the appendix to Mr. Daniell's work on negotiable instruments which has been adopted by twenty states of the American Union, including New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania appears to reproduce in this, as in most other respects, the provision of the Bill of Exchange Act, and may, in our opinion, be regarded as representing the preponderance of authority in America ; see Sections 2, 37, 148, 200,. With regard to American case law, paragraphs 1187 and 1188 of Daniell's work re....