NOTES OF CASES
| Date | 01 October 1946 |
| Published date | 01 October 1946 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1946.tb01016.x |
NOTES
OF
CASES
NEGOTIABLE
INSTBUMENTS,
ESTOPPEL,
NON
EST
FACTUM
AND FICTIONS
Wilson
and Meeson
v.
Piekering,
119481 1
K.B.
422.
IN
Wilson
and Meeson
v.
Piekering,
[1946]
1
K.B.
422,
a
partner in the plaintiff firm signed, on
its
behalf,
a
blank
crossed cheque marked ‘not negotiable’, and handed it to
a
secretary with instructions
to
complete
it
in favour of the
Commissioners of Inland Revenue for
€2.
The secretary
fraudulently inserted the name
of
the defendant as payee,
and
drew the cheque for
€54
4s.
Od. She then gave
it
to
the defendant in payment
of
a
private debt, and the cheque
was
duly met. The
Court
of Appeal held that the plaintiffs
were entitled to judgment for
f54
4s.
Od. because section
81
of the Bills of Exchange Act,
1882,
which provides that
a
person who takes
a
crossed cheque marked
‘
not negotiable
’
shall not have
a
better title to it than the transferor, applies
to
an
original payee,
and
because the plaintiffs were not
estopped from alleging that the defendant’s title to the
cheque was defective.
Although this appears to be the
first
decision on the point,
the judgments of the Master of the Rolls and Morton,
L.J.,
do
not call for comment
so
far
as the construction
of
section
81
of the Act of
1882
is
concerned. Morton,
L.J.,
points
out (at p.
$80)
that,
as
a
rule, the drawer’s object in
marking
a
cheque ‘not negotiable’ is to ensure that
it
is
not cashed by anyone except the payee. However, the
conclusion that the latter is included in the wide wording of
the section seems to
be
inevitable.
On the question of estoppel, the defendant relied on
Llogd’a
Bank,
Ltd.
v.
Cooke and others,
[1907] 1
K.B.
794,
upon the authority
of
which the County Court Judge had
decided in her favour. In that case, the defendant
C.
had
been negotiating for a loan from the plaintiffs who required
collateral security. The defendant
S.
therefore signed his
name on two blank stamped pieces
of
paper and authorised
C.
to complete each of them as
a
promissory note
for
€250
payable to the plaintiff.
C.
fraudulently completed one of
the documents as such
a
note for
E1,000
which
sum
was
advanced to him by the bank to whom
S.
was held liable
To continue reading
Request your trial