Negotiable ' instrument - Appropriation - Doctrine of - Maker of, prOmisso;r
note cannot assert such doctrine 'l'lhere the goods under or as to
'l'lhich he assorts such doctrine are not his.

A maker of a promissory note cannot assert the doctrine 'of appropriation
uhere the goods and proceeds thereof as to \-Ihioh he asserts such doctrin"
aro not his.

* Court: Fla.JCllan, C.J., O'Meara, J., and Platt t J.

Appeal

 The facts of this case are set out
clearly in the judgment given in the High Court. Khartoum. The
plaintiff succeeded in his claim to reoover the balanoe due on a
promissory note subscribed by the defendant, the pOints urged in the
latter's defence being substantially those brought forward as grounds
of appeal.

These points are two: (a) that there was & verbal agreement
between the plaintiff e~d Yassin Abdalla Nasr, for whom plaintiff
discounted the note, that the surplus die from the sale of Yassin's
gum should be applied in settlement of the note drawn by the defendant
and .. sued on,. and. (b) that. in BZJY .. case t he plaint iff .. was bound by law
to appropriate the sale prooeeds to the settlement of the promissory
note, as it fell due on a date prior to that of the note in respect

of whioh the appropriation has actually been made.

The defenoe raised in (a) was in iss~e in the Court below, It
is a question of fact and \>las decided" against the appellant. Nothing
he has advanoed in the course of a long argument before us discloses
any grounds for &).y interference \-1ith the High Court's finding o.g<1inst
him on this point, and on this ground his appeal does nct succeed;

His 1\U'ther Cl.rgument under (b) ia based on an assumption that
Yassin Abdalla Nasr's account '-lith plaintiff is not one account, and
that the advances of gum and on the .disoounted promissory notes were
separate accounts. It is abundantly olear that this is not the case,

and that there is only one account of advances made by plaintiff to

Yassin Abdalla Uasr, in \>lhich the value of the two discounted promissory
not~s are items. If confirmation is needed it m~ be found in Yassin's
admission (at page 9 of the proceedings):

"I agree that I signed a document to plaintiff sa,ying that the
gum and promissory notes were security for m;y \>/hole debt to
plaintiff as a \/hole."

There is in f act no question of any app~cation of ally doctrine
of "appropriation" here. There is one account ~ed by Yassin Abdalla
Maar and the plai~tiff is fully entitled to recover a balance due on

it by choosing ,vhich security of the securi t i ec he holds he •. Jill
utilise in settlement. The defendant is bound by the negotiable
instrument which he chose to put into circulation, an~ in any cas~
could have no voice in any question of "appropriation," for the gum,
or its sale proceeds, is not his. There is one account ruld the
plaintiff has acted in a proper Md common sense Danner in ensuring
its settlement by realising the best aecur-i ty he has.

This appeal fails and is dismissed ,vi th costs-.

O'Meara, J.:I concur.

Platt, J.:I concur.

Appeal dismissed.