Bevan, Widow, v Hill
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 February 1810 |
| Date | 03 February 1810 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1191
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
[381] Second Sittings in London. Saturday, Feb. 3, 1810. bevan, widow, v. hill. (A cheque given for stock sold is lost by the vendor in going home from the Stock Exchange. The purchaser is immediately informed of this fact, but refuses to pay without an indemnity Four months after, the bankers on whom the cheque was drawn stop payment, with sufficient money to answer it of the drawer's in their hands. Held, that under these circumstances an action would not he for the price of the stock.) Indebitatus assumpsU for stock bargained and sold, and for money had and received. Plea, the general issue. On the 27th of February 1809, the defendant purchased 70 hve per cents belonging to the plaintiff for 69, 7s. 6d. , and the same day gave her a cheque for that sum on his bankers, Messrs Walpole and Co. She lost the cheque on her way home from tke Stock Exchange. He was immediately apprised of this fact, and at various times down to the month of June following was requested to pay for the stock ; but he always refused to do so unless he had an indemnity against his liability on the cheque. Messrs. Walpole and Co became bankrupt in the month of May, in the same year, without the cheque having ever been presented for payment. The defendant proved for the amount of the cheque under their commission ; but had not received any dividend at the time when the action was commenced. [382] Garrow for the plaintiff insisted that the cheque could not operate as payment of the stock, and that the defendant was still hound to pay the 69, 7s. 6d. without receiving any indemnity Long before the commencement of the action, he had ceased to be liable on the cheque. According to the principle of Tindal v. Brown, 1 T. R. 167, after the bankruptcy of Walpole and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mƒ€™DONNELL v MURRAY
...Price, 176. Cockell v. BridgemanENR 4 Beav. 499. Wright v. Lord MaidstoneENR 1 Kay & J. 701. Poole v. SmithENR Holt, 144. Bevan v. HillENR 2 Camp. 381. Davis v. DoddENR 4 Taunt. 602. Brown v. MessiterENR 3 M. & S. 281. Pooley v. Millard 1 Cr. & Jer. 411. Champion v. Terry 3 Brod. & B. 295. ......
-
Blackie v Pidding
...C. Jones, Serjt., in the same term, obtained a rule nisi accordingly. He cited Woodford v. Whiteley (M. & M. 517), Bevan v. Hill (2 Campb. 381), Hansard v. Robinson (7 B. & C. 90), 9 D. & R. 860), and Wain v. Bailey (10 Ad. & E.616, 2 P. &.D. 507). Miller now shewed cause. The ground of the......
-
Ramuz v Crowe
...observations in the case Kr, parte ffreenway (G;Ves. jun., 812), and the decisions in Fierson v. Hutdiinson (2 Camp. 211), lievan v. IRll (2 Camp. 381), Mayor v. Johnson (3 Camp. 324), Poole v. Smith (Holt, N. P. C. 144), D&ngerfield v. Wilby (4 Esp. 159), [174] Davis v. Dodd (4 Taunt. 002)......
-
Rogers v Langford
...had been an indorser, lie would not be liable unless the notes were presented, even if the bankers had become bankrupt. Bevan v. Hill (2 Camp. 381). In Hansard v. Robinson (7 B. & C. 90), it was held that the holder of a bill of exchange cannot insist upon payment by the acceptor, without p......