Baker v Walker
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 June 1845 |
| Date | 27 June 1845 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 153 E.R. 558
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 3 D. & L. 46; 14 L. J. Ex. 371. Referred to, Palmer v. Bramley, [1895] 2 Q. B. 405; In re a Debtor, [1907] 1 K. B. 348.
[4(}5] BAKER . walker. June 27, 1845.- To tin action against the maker of a : promissory note payable three months after date, the defendant pleaded, that the promissory note was made and delivered by him to the plaintiff for and on account of a judgment debt recovered by the plaintiff against him, and that except as aforesaid, there never was any consideration or value for the making or delivery of the said note to the plaintiff: - Held, that the plea was bad, inasmuch as it shewed there was an existing debt on account of which the note was made, and the giving of the note was evidence of an agreement by the plaintiff to suspend his remedy upon the judgment, which was a sufficient consideration for the note. [S. C. 3 I). & L. 4G ; 14 L. J. Ex. 371. Referred to, Palmer v. Bmmley, [1895] 2 Q. B. 405 ; In re a Debtor, [1907] 1 K. B. 348.] Debt. The first count of the declaration stated, that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sums of 131. 2s. Gd. and 71. 13s., upon a judgment recovered against the defendant. The second alleged that, on the 21st of March, 1844, the defendant made his promissory note, and thereby promised to pay the plaintiff 261. 5s. thrae months after the date thereof. Plea to the second count, as far as the same relates to the sum of 201. 15s. 6d., parcel of the said sum of 261. 5s., that the said promissory note was made and delivered by him the defendant to the plaintiff for and on account of a certain judgment debt of 201. 15$. 6d. recovered by the plaintiff against the defendant, and that, except as aforesaid, there never was any consideration or value for the making or delivery of the Baid note to the plaintiff. Replication, de injuria. Special demurrer, assigning for causes, that the general replication de injuria is inapplicable to this case, inasmuch as the plea to which it is pleaded involves matter of record, which is not triable by the country. Joinder in demurrer. The point marked for argument on the part of the plaintiff' was, that the plea was bad, as it shewed on the face of it a good and sufficient consideration for making the pronjissory note. Hugh Hill, in support of the demurrer. The replication is clearly bad, as it puta in issue the matter of record alleged in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Mackenzie v Rees
-
South African Breweries Ltd v Ribeiro t/a
...authorities which have been called to our attention seem to me to establish that proposition beyond question. The case of Baker v Walker 14 M & W 465, which C contains Parke B's dictum and the very important case of Belshaw v Bush 11 CB 191, where the point was raised distinctly on demurrer......
-
Ford against Beech
...alone, and it must appear on the face of the plea that the plaintiff took au interest in the negotiable instrument." In Baker v. Walker (14 M. & W. 465, 468), Parke B. said that u promissory note "resembles a specialty (g) :" it was there held that a promissory note, given in consideration ......
-
Munster and Leinster Bank v France
...v. YoungENR 3 B. & C. 208. Pryce v. BuryENR 2 Drew. 41. Price v. MoultonENR 10 C. B. 561. Hall v. Cole 4 A. & E. 577. Baker v. WalkerENR 14 M. & W. 465; 3 D. & L. 46. Overend Gurney & Co. v. Oriental Financial CorporationELR L. R. 7 H. L. 348. Higgens's CaseENR 6 Coke, 344. Price v. Moulton......