Ackland v Pearce
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 March 1811 |
| Date | 02 March 1811 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1265
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
2 CAMP. 600. ACKLAND V. PEARGE 1265 Saturday, March 2, 1811. ackland v. pearce. Coram Le Blanc, J. (a)1 (A bill of exchange is void m the hands of a bonafide indorsee, if it was drawn in consequence of an usurious agreement for discounting it ; although the drawer to whose order it was payable, was not privy to this agreement. Secondary evidence may be given of a written notice of the dishonour of a bill of exchange, without notice to produce it ) This was an action on a bill of exchange for 386, dated 15 May 1810, accepted by J. Wain, drawn by the defendant, payable to his own order 10 days after date, and indorsed by him to the plaintiff. Defence,-usury m the formation of the bill. [600] J. Wain, the acceptor, swore that, being much pressed for the sum of 250, he applied to one White to discount a bill for that amount. White refused, as the bifi had too long to run ; but offered if he could get Pearce, the defendant, to draw a bill to be accepted by him at 10 days for 386. to give him 250 in cash, and a returned bill of another person for 136, on condition that he, White, should receive for this accommodation the sum of 10. The bill in question was accordingly at Wain's solicitation, drawn and indorsed by the defendant, who was not made acquainted with the agreement. Wain having accepted the bill, earned it to White, received from him a cheque for 250, but not the bill for 136, or anything more, and paid him the stipulated sum of 10 Topping, for the plaintiff, contended, that this was not usury which would defeat this action, as the agreement was not between the parties to the bill The defendant was entirely ignorant of the manner in which the bill was to be discounted ; and its character could not be determined by what took place between the acceptor and third persons. The usury was in the discounting of the bill...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edwards v Dick
...a valuable consideration for it. The cases under the Statute of Usury are similar to the present. Under that Act, in Ackland v. Pearce (2 Campb. 599), it was held, that a bill of exchange is void in the hands of a bon& fide indorsee, if drawn in consequence of an usurious agreement for disc......
-
Gleadon v Tinkler and Others
...the bonds against the assignees of the bankrupts ; and the Court of King's Bench afterwards confirmed his direction Wils&n v. Bal/our, 2 Campb 599 The reason of this case is evident upon the principles above stated. For, as a claim of the highest degree upon the part of the creditor could n......