Anderson v Weston and Badcock
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 January 1840 |
| Date | 31 January 1840 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 133 E.R. 117
IN THE COMMON PLEAS.
S. C. 8 Scott, 583; 9 L. J. C. P. 194; 4 Jur. 105. Referred to, Butler v. Mountgarret, 1859, 7 H. L. C. 646.
[296] anderson v. weston and badcock. January 31, 1840. [S. C. 8 Scott, 583; 9 L. J. C. P. 194; 4 Jur. 105. Keferred to, Butler v. Mmmtgarret, 1859, 7 H. L. C. 646.] In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a bill of exchange must be taken to have been issued at the time it bears date.-And where an indorsement bore no date, Held, that it was properly left to the jury to determine, from the circumstances attending the transfer of the bill, the time at which the indorsement was made. The Plaintiff declared on a bill of exchange for 391. 19s. Od., drawn on Edward Hickman by the Defendants on the 2d of February 1838, payable three months after date; indorsed by the Defendants to James Anderson, and by him to the Plaintiff; presented to Hickman, and by him dishonoured; whereof the Defendant had notice. Badcock suffered judgment to go by default. Weston pleaded, first, that he, together with Weston, did not make the said bill of exchange, in manner and form, &c.; secondly, That he did not with Badcock indorse the bill in manner and form. At the trial before Tindal C. J., it appeared that on the 20th of March 1838 a notice appeared in the Gazette that the partnership between Weston and Badcock had been dissolved on the 29th of December 1837, pursuant to an agreement between them and the award of an arbitrator made January 30th 1838. The bill and its indorsement were proved to be in the handwriting of Badcock, but no evidence was given, other than the date on the bill, to shew that it had been drawn or indorsed previously to the 20th of March. The action was commenced in July 1838. It was objected on behalf of the Defendant Weston, that some further evidence ought to have been given by the Plaintiff to shew that the bill was indorsed previously to the 20th of March, when the public received the first intimation of the dissolution of the partnership. Tindal C. J. left it to the jury to say whether the indorse-[297]-ment was made before or after that time, and a verdict was found for the Plaintiff, with leave for Weston to move to set it aside and enter a nonsuit instead, on the above objection. Barstow having obtained a rule nisi accordingly, Humfrey shewed cause. There was no evidence of fraud in any of the transactions touching this bill; and where the transactions are not impeached, the general rule is, that instruments are presumed to have been written at the time they bear date. Thus in Smith v. Battens (1 Moo. & Eob. 341) it was held that indorsement on a promissory note admitting the receipt of interest must be taken to have been written at the time the date expressed; in Hunt v. Massey (5 B. & Adol. 902), and Qoodtitle dem. Baker v. Milburn (2 Mees. & Welsb. 853), there were similar decisions with respect to a letter; and in Sinclair v. Baggaley (4 Mees. & Welsb. 312) it was held, that a written paper, containing a statement of mutual accounts between a creditor and a bankrupt by whom it was signed, and bearing .date previous to the bankruptcy, shewing a balance due to the creditor, was prima facie evidence, as against the assignees, in an action brought by them against the creditor, that it was written at the time it bore date. It is true, that in Dickson v. Smith (6 T. K. 57), where the defendant proposed to set 118 ANDERSON V. WESTON 6 BING. (N. C.) 298. off, against a demand by assignees of a bankrupt, cash notes of the bankrupt payable to the bearer, and dated before the bankruptcy, it was held that he must shew they came to his hand before the bankruptcy; but that was not on the ground that the notes were not to be presumed to be written when they bore date, but that the [298] defendant's set off was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haslam v Money for Living (Aust) Pty Ltd
...[1991] 1 AC 56 distinguished Allen v Anthony (1816) 35 ER 679 applied Allsop v Marshall (1942) 59 WN (NSW) 159 cited Anderson v Weston (1840) 133 ER 117 applied Associated Beauty Aids Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1965) 113 CLR 662 cited Austin Construction Co (Australia) Ltd ......
-
PIERCE SOMERSET BUTLER v Right Hon. H. E. Butler, Viscount Mountgarret
...v. SmithENR 11 M. & W. 483. Goodtitle v. MilburnENR 2 M. & W. 853. Sinclair v. BaggallyENR 4 M. & W. 312. Anderson v. WestonENR 6 Bing., N. C., 296. Potez v. GlossopENR 2 Ex 191. Rex v. Plumer Russ. & Ry., C. C., 266. Fletcher v. Braddyl 3 Star. Rep. 64. Archangelo v. ThompsonENR 2 Camp. 62......
-
Gaw v Córas Iompair Éireann
...(12) 9 L. R. I. 85. (13) 57 I. L. T. R. 89. (14) Sm. L. C. (8th ed., 1929), vol. 1, at pp. 51, 94, 95. (15) [1790] 3 T. R. 766. (16) 6 Bing. N. C. 296. (17) 3 Bing. N. C. 183. (18) Cooke and Al. 42. (19) 28 L. R. I. 144. (20) 8 Q. B. D. 403. (21) 20 Ch. D. 562. (22) [1891] A. A. 649. (23) 3......
-
Knight v Marjoribanks
...v. Turtm (1 You. & Coll. (C. C.), 98), Glapham v. Shtilito (7 Beav. 146), Bartlett v. Gillard (3 Russ. 149), Anderson v. Weston (6 Bing. (N. C.), 296), Mortlock v. Euller (10 Ves. 291), Cooke v. Claywarth (18 Ves. 12), Fellowes v. Lord Gwydir (1 Russ. & M. 83), Hunter v. Atkins (3 Myl. & K.......