JUDGMENT Miller, J. 1. I think the District Munsif is wrong and that there is here an endorsement in full. The endorsement runs "This note has been made over to so and so on 31st March" and is signed by the payee and the note so endorsed was delivered to the endorsee. The only question is whether in the absence of a direct request to pay, the endorsement can operate as a negotiation. It seems to me that if it contains what is equivalent to a direction to pay to the endorsee, though it may not contain actual words of direction, it will contain a direction to pay within the meaning of Section 16 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. I think the endorsement in the present case can be construed as a direction to pay the amount of the note to the person named in it, and is an endorsement in full (compare the cases noted in Bigelow on Bills, Edition of 1893, p. 69.) 2. The District Munsifs decree must therefore be set aside and the suit remanded for disposal. 3. Costs will abide the results.