Brind v Hampshire
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 475
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 1 Tyr. & G. 790; 2 Gale, 33; 5 L. J. Ex. 197.
biunb v. hampshire. Kxch. of Pleas. 1836.-A., resident abroad, remitted a bill to B., his ageut in England, drawn by A., and specially indorsed by him to C., with whom his children were at school, in payment of C.'s account for their board and education. B. got the bill accepted by the drawees, and sent a letter by post to C., stating that he had received a commission from A. to pay her some money on account of his children, and desired to be informed when and how it should be delivered. While the bill remained in B.'s hands, he received directions from A. to keep it, and the proceeds, in his hands, and to have a fair investigation into G.'s accounts, and after such investigation, to pay her what might be due to her. No such investigation took place, and B. detained the bill:-Held, that C. could not recover it in trover. [S. C. 1 Tyr. & G. 790; 2 Gale, 33 ; 5 L. ,T. Ex. 197,] Trover for a foreign bill of exchange, drawn at Honduras, dated 28th August, 1835, purporting to be drawn by Hyde & Forbes upon arid accepted by Hyde & Company, being for the payment to William Uglier, Esq., or order, of 3001. sterling, at ninety days' sight, and purporting to be indorsed by the said William Usher to the order of Mrs. Frances Brind. Third plea, that heretofore, to wit, on the i21st of October, 1835, he the defendant received [366] the said bill of exchange from the said William Usher, from parts beyond the seas, to wit, from Belize, Honduras, and was then directed by the said William Usher to hand over to Mrs. Brind, the wife of the plaintiff, the said bill of exchange; but before the defendant could hand over to the said Mrs. Brind the said bill of exchange, and without any negligence or improper delay on the part of the defendant, and before any demand of the said bill of exchange by the plaintiff or the said Mrs. Brind, and whilst the same was in the hands and possession of the defendant on the direction and for the purpose aforesaid, to wit, on the 24th of November, 1835, the said William Usher countermanded and revoked the said direction, and then directed the defendant to keep the said bill of exchange and the proceeds thereof in his the defendant's hands, and not to hand over or deliver the said bill of exchange or pay the proceeds thereof to the said Mrs. Brind or the plaintiff; whereupon he the defendant, pursuant to such revocation and countermand and subsequent direction of the said William Usher to keep the said bill in his the defcadatit'a hands, 4716 BRIND V. HAMPSHIRE 1M. &W. 67. aucj the proceeds thereof as aforesaid, and not to pay the same to the aaid Mrs. Brind or the plaintiff on the day and year aforesaid, did keep the said bill of exchange, and thdn detained and still detains the same in his the defendant's hands and possession, and refuses to hand over or deliver the same to the said Mrs. Brind or the plaintiff, foil the cause aforesaid, and as he the defendant might and still may lawfully do for the cause aforesaid, and which is the said detaining, &c., whereof the plaintiff hath complained, &c. ^Replication-that before the bill was received by the defendant as in the said plea mentioned, to wit, on the day first aforesaid, the same had been indorsed by the said William Usher, and he by that indorsement had ordered and appointed the said sum of money in the said [367] bill mentioned to be paid to the order of the said Mrs. Brind, the wife of the said plaintiff; and that at the time of the detention thereof, the said indorsement remained thereon in full force and effect: and the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Belcher and Others, Assignees of Chapman, a Bankrupt, against Campbell and Another
...resumed the custody of the bills, Sweetland not having engaged with the defendants to deliver the bills to them ; Brind v. Hampshire (1 M. & W. 365. Tyr. & G. 790), where Williams v. Everett (14 East, 582), was acted on. The bankruptcy, with notice to Sweetland, was a countermand of the aut......
-
Browne and Another v Hare and Another
...been hablo if, with the authority of Browne and Co., he had refused to deliver the bill of lading to Hare and Co. . Bnnd v. Hampshue (1 M. & W. .365). [\Villes, J , referred to JKilliamt, v Everett (14 East, 582).] Prideaux (Butt with him), for the plaintiffs (May 18) Goolden was the broker......
-
Cross v Cross
...DIVISION. CROSS and CROSS. Trimmer v. Danby 25 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 424. Brind v. HampshireENR 1 M. & W. 365. Warriner v. RogersELR L. R. 16 Eq. 340. Bromage v. LloydENR 1 Ex. 32. Foster v. DawberENR 6 Ex. 839. Owens v. Pizey 11 W. R. 21. Richards v. DelbridgeELR L. R. 18 Eq. 11. Scales v. Mau......
-
Conway v Lewis
...Bench. CONWAY and LEWIS. Cox v. TroyUNKENR 1 D. & Ry. 38; S. C. 5 B. & Al. 474. Bentinck v. DorrienENR 6 East, 200. Brind v. HampshireENR 1 M. & W. 365. Marston v. AllenENR 8 m. & W. 504. Henry v. Burbidge 4 Scott, R. 296. Killikelly v. Kelly 5 Ir. Law Rep. 33. Barry v. M'Dowell 5 Ir. Law R......