Carr against Stephens
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 July 1829 |
| Date | 06 July 1829 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 281
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 4 Man. & Ry. 590; 7 L. J. K. B. O. S. 336.
[758] caer against stephens. Monday, July 6th, 1829. A receiver of 'the rents of an estate, to a share of which a married woman was entitled, having in his hands money due to her, by the direction of the husband, accepted a bill on the faith of that fund, drawn by a creditor of the husband for money lent to him. (a) On a subsequent day in this term the same question was again agitated, in a case of Ooates v. Nash, when the Court adhered to the opinion expressed above. 282 gabb.v. stephens 9,.&-c.759. Before the bill became due the husband and wife gave a joint direction to the receiver to pay over the money to a third person, which he did before the commencement of this action. When the bill became due the acceptor refused to pay it, unless the drawer would indemnify him against the claim of the husband and wife to have the money paid according to their order. An indemnity was given, but the acceptor still refused to pay: Held, that the drawer could not maintain an action on the bill, as it would only lead to a circuity of action, as the acceptor, being bound to pay the; money according to the order of the husband and wife, might recover it back by suing on the agreement to indemnify. [S. C. 4 Man. & By. 590; 7 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 336.] Assumpsit on a bill of exchange for 1891., drawn by the plaintiff, and accepted by the defendant, and for money had and received. Plea, non assumpsit. At the trial before Lord Tenterden C.J., at the London sittings after Trinity term 1828, it appeared that the plaintiff had acted as the solicitor for Mr. and Mrs. H., the latter of whom was entitled to a share of certain real estates under the will of her father. A suit in equity had been instituted to carry into effect the trusts of that will, and the defendant was appointed receiver of the estates. In 1826 he passed his accounts as receiver, and then had in his hands a sum of money, of which Mrs. H.'s share was near 3001. The plaintiff then had a claim on Mr. H. for 1491., for money lent, and there was due to him from the defendant 401. for business done for him as receiver, and for these two sums the acceptance was given with the concurrence of Mr. H., but without any authority from his wife. Before the bill became due, Mr. and Mrs. H. demanded the money from the defendant, which he had received on her account, and he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Eastern Extension¸ Australasia and China Telegraph Company Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
-
Turner v Davies
...have recourse to an action upon it;(i) but if the covenant had been not to sue at all, it is reasonable, (h) [So in Can- v. Stephens, 9 B. & C. 758. 4 M. & E. 590, S. C., a receiver of rents of an estate, to a share of which a married woman was entitled, having in his hands money due to her......
-
Parkes against Smith
...; note (2) to Turner v. Davies (2 Wms. Saund. 150), Johnson v. Carre (1 Lev. 152), Hodges v. Smith (Gro. Eliz. 6?3), Cam- v. Stephens (9 B. & C. 758), Simpson v. Swan (3 Campb. 291). The kind of plea is anomalous, but is distinct from estoppel, because it does nut admit that a cause of acti......
-
Samuel Anderson, in Error, v Anne Fitzgerald, Administratrix of Patrick Fitzgerald
...ANDERSON, in Error, and ANNE FITZGERALD, Administratrix of PATRICK FITZGERALD. Bowerbank v. MonteiroENR 4 Taunt. 848. Carr v. StephensENR 9 B. & C. 758. Hartley v. WilkinsonENR 4 Camp. 127. Carter v. BoehmENR 3 Burr. 1905. Scanlan v. Sceales 6 Ir. Law Rep. 367. Quin v. The National Assuranc......