Byrom against Thompson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 November 1839 |
| Date | 06 November 1839 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 113 E.R. 324
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. 3 P. & D. 71; 9 L. J. D. B. 26.
bykom against thompson. Wednesday, November 6th, 1839. Defendant gave plaintiff a promissory note, without the words " or order." Six months afterwards plaintiff' mentioned the omission to defendant, who answered that the omission was his, the defendant's own, and consented that the words should be inserted, which was done accordingly. The note was riot restamped. The note having been declared on, as altered, and issue joined on a plea denying the making of the note : Held, that, on the above evidence, the jury were justified in finding for plaintiff, as it appeared that the alteration was made only in furtherance of the original intention of the parties, and to correct a mistake, in which case no new stamp was requisite. [S. C. 3 P. & D. 71 ; 9 L. J. Q. B. 26.] Assumpsit. The first count stated that defendant, on 2d November 1837, made his promissory note in writing, and delivered it to plaintiff', and thereby promised to pay to plaintiff, or order, on demand, 5251. with interest; that payment was demanded on llth [32] December 1838, but the note was not paid. There were also other counts. First plea, as to the first count, that defendant did not make the said promissory note in the first count mentioned, in manner, &c. Issues on this, and on other pleas not material here. On the trial before Lord Denman C.J., at the London sittings after last Trinity term, the plaintiff' produced a promissory note answering to the description in the count; bnt it appeared that the words "or order" were interlined. The plaintiff' proved that the note had originally been made without the words "or order:" that, at some time after 10th April 1838, the omission was complained of to the defendant, who thereupon said that the omission was his (the defendant's) own, and consented to the insertion of the words, which was accordingly made. It was objected for the defendant that a new stamp was necessary, by reason of the alteration. Verdict for plaintiff on all the issues ; leave being reserved to move to enter a verdict for defendant on the issue on the first plea. Alexander now moved accordingly. A new stamp was necessary, as the nature and effect of the note were altered by the interlineation. The cases in point are collected in Selwyn's Nisi Prius (vol. i. p. 315, &c. (9th ed.), and in Chitty on Bills (4). In Knill v. Williams (10 East, 431), a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Same v Bateman
...of a mistake, and in furtherance of the original intention of the parties; 3 Esp. 246, Kershaw v. Cox. [6 M. & S. 142, Jacobs v. Hart. 11 A. & E. 31, Byrmn v. Thompson. 3 P. & D. 71, S. C. Ry. & Moo. 37, Brutt v. Picard. 2 M. & Gr. 890, Cariss v. Tattersall. 3 Scott, N. R. 257, S. C.]; or b......
-
Hamelin against Bruck and Hirschfield
...and, if it was made in France, it is conceded that no stamp was necessary. (a) 1 M. & S. 87. See Abrahams v. Skvnner, 12 A. & E. 763. (6) 11 A. & E. 31. See Bradley v. Bardsley, 14 M. & W. 873. (d)1 11 M. & W. 590. See Parry v. Nicholson, 13 M. & W. 778. This point was not further discussed......
-
Hartley v Manson
...Vide ante, 172 (a). (a) See Kershaw v. Cox, 3 Esp. N. P. C. 246, 10 East, 437; Jacobs v. Hart, 2 Stark. N. P. C. 45; Byrom v. Thompson, 11 A. & E. 31, 3 P. & D. 71. See also Brett v. Picard, 1 R. & M. 37 ; Attwood v. Griffin, ib. 425. (Vf As to the consequences of such an alteration, see Ma......
-
Pickwood v Neate
...to the action on the bill, and the plaintiff in that action not put to prove that he was a bona fide holder. In t-iliort v. Kullmuuy (11 Ad. & E. 31), Lord Dennmn says,-"No person has a right to inflame his owti account against another by incurring additional expense in the unrighteous resi......