Bentley and Another v Nortmouse
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 May 1827 |
| Date | 31 May 1827 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 1083
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Referred to, De la Chaumette v. Bank of England, 1831, 2 B. & Ad. 385; Brown v. De Winton, 1848, 6 C. B 336.
Guildhall, May 31, 1827. bentley and another v. nobthouse. (A foreign note is negotiable in England by indorsement, by virtue of the stat. 3 & 4 A. c. 9 (a). A promissory note is not admissible in evidence under the money counts in an action by the indorsee against the maker (&).) [Referred to, De la Chaumette v. Bank of England, 1831, 2 B. & Ad. 385 ; Brown v. De Winton, 1848, 6 C. B 336.] Assumpeit by the indorsee against the maker of a promissory note. The note was made in Scotland ; and Chrfcty, for the defendant, contended that it was not negotiable or transferable by indorsement. The power of transferring promissory notes, like bills of exchange, by indorsement, was created by the statute 3 & 4 Anne, c. 9, and has no existence independently of that statute ; and that statute having been passed before the Union, had no operation on notes made in Scotland. It is true that in some of the Stamp Acts there have been clauses restraining the negotiability of foreign notes not stamped according to their provisions \ but such clauses cannot create a power of negotiation not [67] otherwise existing; and although instances may be cited where parties have been allowed to recover on foreign promissory notes^ they are of little importance, unless the objection appears to have been made. In the case of Carr v. Shaw, Bayley on Bills, 4th edit. p. 22, the objection was made, and then the Court of King's Bench intimated a strong opinion in favour of it, although, the action being between the immediate parties to the note, the plaintiff was allowed to recover on the money ceunta. Here he cannot do so, for he is an indorsee, and the action is against the maker. Lord Tenteiden C. J. That circumstance prevents the plaintiff from recovering on the money counts ; but I think he is entitled to recover on the note itself. It is true tLat the statute 3 & 4 Anne, c. 9, being made before the Union, only regulated the laws of England, and left those of Scotland unaffected. But there are no words in the statute to confine its operation in England to notes made there : it speaks generally of promissory notes, and enacts that they shall...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gay and Another v Lander
...in the hands of the maker himself, and so he can never be liable upon them." 6C. B, 351. BKOWN V. DE WINTON 1287 in Bentley v. Northmse (M. & M. 66), Notes in the present form have been in common use for many years; and, until the case of Flight v. Maclean, it never was suggested that they ......
-
De La Chaumette v Bank of England
...in a foreign country trans ferable in England when indorsed in this country, as in Milne v. Graham (1 B. & C. 192), Bentley v. Northouse(l M. & M. 66); but whether a promissory note made in this country and indorsed or delivered abroad passes by such indorsement or delivery. Before the Stat......
-
Pierce Mahoney, One of the Public Officers of the Provincial Bank of Ireland, against John Musson Ashlin and George Ashlin
...to a statute (12 G. 3, c. 72), passed exclusively for Scotland. (b) See Milne v. Graham, 1 B. & C. 192, and Bentley v. Northhouse, 1 M. & M. 66, in which cases a Scotch promissory note, negotiated in this country, was considered as foreign. 1222 MONK V. WHITTENBUBY 2 B. & AD. 483. Lord Tent......