Cooper v Le Blanc
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1815 |
| Date | 01 January 1815 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 95 E.R. 190
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, AT WESTMINSTER
[295] cooper versus le blanc. In order to charge the indorser of a promissory note, it is not necessary to prove a demand made upon the maker. Tamen quaare. At the sittings in term in London, the question was, whether the indorser of a promissory note should be charged, though no demand could be proved to have been made upon the drawer ; and, Lord Hardwicke, C.J. held he should, and he said, that my Lord t Holt was of a contrary opinion, for he took the indorsor to be only a warrantor, and that therefore a demand was necessary, and that the late Lord Chief Justice J Eyre was of the same opinion; but he said that my Lord Chief Justice Pratt, and Lord King and Lord Raymond were of opinion he might be charged, he|| himself was of the same opinion. The defence was, that the note in question, and the indorsement are forged ; and this they would prove by examining into the similitude of hands ; for though the defendant had actually acknowledged this very indorsement to be his hand; yet it is alledged that arose from a mistake in the defendant, because there is another real note of the same date and contents, outstanding, but, Lord Hardwicke, C.J. would not suffer it, and said, that possibly it might be done, if there had been no actual acknowledgment, or even as there has been such, you might possibly be allowed to give proof of an actual forgery; but it would be of most dangerous consequence now after such an acknowledgment. The indorsor should have been cautious. Mich. 31 Geo. II. Heylyn v. Adamson by Lord Mansfield : that a demand must be proved upon acceptor of bill or drawer of note, in convenient time, and if not and he fails, no action against indorser. 2 Bur. Rep. 669. So contrary to Hardwicke. See Hamilton v. Mackrel, post (I)2. (l)i See 3 Burr. 1273. 7 T. R. 93. And see Gwill. 1328. Toller on Tithes, 184. And as to where a county may prescribe in nou decimando generally, and where not, any more than a particular person, see 2 Wms. Sauud. 142, n. (2). And further as to'what may be pleaded as to matter of custom, see 1 H. Bl. 393; see also Willes, 202, cum notis. t Salk. 126, pi. 127, 133. Ld. Raym. 443. 12 Mod. 244. j Stra. 649. Stra. 441, 515. || Atk Rep. 281, pi. 150. (l)s Pa, 322. The doctrine here, and in Hamilton v. Mackrel, pa. 322, post, laid
English Reports Citation: 95 E.R. 191
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, AT WESTMINSTER
CAS. T. HARD. 296. TRINITY TERM, 9 GEO. II. 191 kinaston versus the mayor, aldermen and assistants of the town of shrewsbury. Where a jury trying traverses under stafc. 9 Ann. c. 30, omits to find damages, the Court will not direct a writ of inquiry for the purpose of assessing them. Vide pa. 147, S. C. but not S. P. A mandamus issued to restore C. Kinaston to the office of an alderman of this corporation; to which the defendants made a special return, setting forth, that he had been amoved from his [296]...
To continue reading
Request your trial