Pillemer v Israelstam and Another [1911] ZAWLD 36 (10 August 1911)

Bills of Exchange - lndorsement - Company lndorsement - Authority of Signatories - "Without recourse against"

A nominal plaintiff is required to provide security for costs only when it appears that the process of the Court is being abused, e.g., when he is a man of straw.

A promissory note made payable to A. & Co., Ltd., was indorsed with the said company's stamp, and signed with two names purporting to be those of the secretary and a director respectively. Above the company's stamp was written "without recourse
against." Provisional sentence was claimed by the plaintiff, and the summons alleged that the note had been duly indorsed in blank by the company, and that plaintiff was the lawful holder.

Held, that the word " against " was surplusage and consequently did not affect the validity of the indorsement.

Held, further, that the indorsement was that of the company, and not that of the agents for the company.

Held, further, that in the absence of any evidence of want of authority by the signatories, the allegation that the indorsement was made by the company was sufficient to found a presumption of authority.