Bishop against Rowe
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 January 1815 |
| Date | 23 January 1815 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 105 E.R. 647
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
bishop against bowe (a). same against bayly. Monday, Jan. 23d, 1815. Where the holder of a bill of exchange upon its being dishonoured received part payment, and for the residue another bill of exchange, drawn and accepted by persons not parties to the original bill, and afterwards sued the drawer and acceptor upon the original bill: Held that it was sufficient for him to prove presentment of the substituted bill to the acceptor for payment, and that it was dishonoured, without proving that he gave notice of the dishonour to the drawer of the substituted bill. Assumpsit on a bill of exchange for 2001. dated the 27th of January 1812, drawn by E. S. as agent of the defendant Howe, payable to the defendant's order, two months after date, at Messrs. Hayters, London, accepted by J. Bayly, and indorsed by the defendant. The se-[363]-cond action was upon the same bill against Bayly the acceptor. At the trial before Gibbs C.J. at the last Devon Assizes, the case in substance was this : ' The bill being in the hands of the Torquay bank, of which firm one Tucker was a (a) Cause was shewn at Serjeant's,Inn before this term. ^ 648 BISHOP. U:RO WE 3M.&S.364. partner, Tucker's son together with the plaintiffs son discounted ifc for Tucker with the Dartmouth bank, striking out Tucker's name, which was at that time indorsed, and indorsing the plaintiff's name; which indorsement the plaintiff adopted. The bill when due was presented and dishonoured, and due notice thereof given by the Dartmouth bank to the defendant. The defendant wrote to them stating that the money had been remitted by Bayly the acceptor to the Torquay bank; and a day or two afterwards the Torquay bank remitted to the Dartmouth bank 1001. and promised to pay the residue. The Dartmouth bank applied to the plaintiff for the residue, and the plaintiff applied to Tucker; who gave him a bill for 1001. drawn by himself on one Lewis in London, at two months, payable to the plaintiff, which the plaintift indorsed and carried to the Dartmouth bank. This bill was also presented for payment and dishonoured, but no notice of the dishonor was given to Tucker. And it was insisted by the defendant that by reason of this want of notice to Tucker the drawer of the substituted bill, the plaintiff could not recover upon the original bill, inasmuch as the second bill being substituted for the original bill pro tarito, the plaintiff was bound to go through all the...
To continue reading
Request your trial