Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1 Appeal No. 175 of 1897 (unreported). The judgment in this case was delivered by Shephard Offg. C.J , and Moore, J., as follows: "In Patta Ambadi Marar v. Krishnan I.L.R. 11 Mad. 290, it was held that without endorsement there could not be negotiation of a promissory note payable to order. Here the point taken is that there was a valid transfer or assignment of the chose in action and it is not contended that there was any negotiation of the note. According to English law it is clear that a promissory note may be assigned by the holder just like any other chose in action, the assignee taking the rights which his assignor has to convey and no more Whistler v. Forster 32 L.J. (C.P.) 163. He does not obtain the title according to law merchant which an endorsement would give him, nor could he before the Judicature Act, sue in his own name, but the transfer is nevertheless valid as an equitable assignment. There is no reason why in this country an assignee of this particular sort of chose in action should not enjoy the rights which attach to the assignee of a debt and be allowed to sue in his own name. It is argued that by the Negotiable Instruments Act, any other mode of transfer than by endorsement is excluded. We can see nothing in the Act to justify this contention."