Cockell v Bridgeman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 December 1841 |
| Date | 08 December 1841 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 49 E.R. 432
ROLLS COURT
[499] cockell v. bsidgeman. Dec. 8, 23, 1841. Bill by indorsee against the acceptor of a bill alleged to have been mislaid, lost, or accidentally destroyed, for payment or an indemnity, dismissed with costs, the loss, &c., not being sufficiently proved. Held, also, that the proof of payment by the indorsee to the holder, and the delivery up to him of the bill, coupled with the admission of the acceptor, that he had not paid, and the usual affidavit of the Plaintiff upon filing his bill of the loss, were not sufficient to entitle the Plaintiff to an enquiry. This bill was filed by the alleged holder and indorsee of a lost bill of exchange against the acceptor, for payment of the amount due upon the bill, upon giving a proper indemnity to the acceptor. It appeared that the Defendant was the acceptor of a bill of exchange for the sum of £62, 10s., drawn by and made payable to Mr. Ryan. Mr. Ryan indorsed the bill, and before it became due, it came into the possession of the Plaintiff, who paid it over to Messrs. Hodgson & Burton. On the bill becoming due, it was presented by Messrs. Hodgson & Burton for payment, and was dishonoured. The amount was subsequently paid by the Plaintiff to Messrs. Hodgson & Burton. These facts were proved in this cause. The Plaintiff by his bill alleged, that frequently since the bill became due, he had required payment thereof from the Defendant, but that since the 23d May 1838 (the bill having become due on the 18th), he had been unable to find the bill, although he had made diligent search for it, and that the same was now either mislaid, or lost, or had been accidentally destroyed. The Defendant admitted that the Plaintiff had frequently required payment of the bill without producing it, and had alleged that the bill was mislaid or lost, but save as aforesaid (i.e., as the Plaintiff alleged it); the Defendant did not know, and could not [500] set forth, as to his belief or otherwise, whether the Plaintiff had been unable to find the bill, or whether he had made diligent search for it, or whether it had been mislaid or lost, or had been accidentally destroyed. The Defendant by his answer also admitted that he had never paid it, or any part of it. The Plaintiffs bill was accompanied by the affidavit of the loss of the bill of exchange. In this state of the pleadings both parties went into evidence, and the Plaintiff did not produce any witness, nor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mƒ€™DONNELL v MURRAY
...Rep. 301. Ex parte Greenway 6 Ves. 811. Macartney v. GrahamENR 2 Sim. 285. Davies v. DoddENR 4 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. Mess......