Ferrier v Stewart [1912] HCA 47

32 HIGH COURT

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

AGNES FERRIER . A ; : : 7: DEFENDANT,

JOHN GORDON STEWART AND ANOTHER RESPONDEN PLAINTIFF:

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA.

1912. ment by payee—Holder in due course—Estoppel—Instruments Act 1890 (7

aes, (No, 1103), secs. 21, 38, 55, 56, 57, 90. Secu! A promissory note made by A. in favour of B. bore the indorsements " June 1 V7, without recourse," "0," "B," above one another) aid' in aaa i appeared that C. took the note, which had been already signed by A., a was intended to be used by way of renewal of a previous promissory note

Isaacs JJ. made and indorsed in the same way, to B., who refused to take it unless herself first indorsed it. C. accordingly signed her name on the back of note with the intention of indorsing it, and of being liable as an indo R., and then B, took it. B, subsequently placed his indorsements on the in the order in which they appeared. In an action by B. against C. uj note,

Held, that the indorsements were in the order in which they were inte by C. to appear, and that C. was estopped from denying either that she an indorser, or that B. was a holder in due course.

Held, therefore, that C. was liable to B. either as an indorser or under 57 of the Instruments Act 1890, which provides that '* Where a person | a bill otherwise than as drawer or acceptor he thereby incurs the aiabily an indorser to a holder in due course."

Semble, per Grifith C.J., the promissory note was 'a bill wanting a material particular," which the persons in possession of it were entit fill up under sec. 21 of the Instruments Act 1890.

15 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

Steele v. M' inlay, 5 App. Cas , 754, discussed.

Decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Hodges J.) affirmed.

Appeat front the Supreme Court of Victoria.

An action was brought in the Supreme Court by John Gordon Stewart, as surviving partner of the firm of Gummow & Stewart, or, alternatively, by him and Hester Ann Gummow, as executrix of Frederic Forbes Lewis Gummow, against Agnes Ferrier and Joseph Ferrier, on five promissory notes, dated 18th March 1909, alleged to have been made by Joseph Ferrier in favour of the firm of Gummow & Stewart, or order, and indorsed by Agnes Ferrier, to have been made payable at the Bank of Victoria and to have been indorsed without recourse by the firm of Gummow & Stewart. It was alleged that each of the promissory notes was duly presented for payment and was dishonoured, that notice of dishonour was duly given, and that the plaintiff Stewart, or, alternatively, the plaintiffs Stewart and Gummow, were the holder, or holders, or alternatively the holder or holders in due course.