Cox and Others against Troy
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 January 1822 |
| Date | 29 January 1822 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 1264
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
[474] Cox and others against troy. Tuesday, January 29th, 1822. When a defendant, having once written his acceptance with the intention of accepting a bill, afterwards changes his mind, and before it is communicated to the holder, or the bill delivered back to him, obliterates his acceptance: Held, that he is nob bound as acceptor. Assumpsit upon a bill of exchange for 9381., dated 20th May, 1820, drawn by Stephen and James Eoch, upon the defendant and W. T. Bobarts, since deceased, by the names and firm of Messrs. W. T. Eobarts and Co. London, payable 61 days after sight to Michael Murphy, and indorsed by him to the plaintiffs, and alleged to have been accepted by the defendant and W. Tierney Kobarts, payable at Messrs. Eobarts, Curtis and Co. The first count stated these facts, and a presentment for payment when due, and refusal to pay at Messrs. Eobarts, Curtis, and Co. The second count was on a general acceptance; and the third was special, stating that the bill was delivered to the defendant and W. T. Eobarts, to determine, within a reasonable time, whether or not they would accept the same ; and that they promised to take due care of the same, and return the same without defacing or spoiling it, which they did not do, but returned the same bill in a defaced and injured state. The declaration also contained the usual money counts. Plea, general issue. The cause was tried at the sittings after Trinity term 1821, before Abbott C.J. when a verdict was found for the plaintiffs, subject to the following ease. It was admitted on the trial, that the bill of exchange mentioned in the declaration was drawn by Messrs. T. and J. Eoch on the defendant and W. T. Eobarts, since deceased, as stated in the declaration, and that the same was duly indorsed to the plaintiffs by the payee. The plaintiffs in London [475] received the bill from Cork on the 24th May, 1820; and on the same day their clerk, by their directions, left it for acceptance at the defendant's counting-house in Old Broad-Street, London, in the usual way. He did not call for it until Saturday the 27th May, upon which day one of the defendant's clerks delivered back the bill of exchange to him without any observations being made at the time. The words "24 May, 1820, at Messrs. Eobarts, Curtis and Co., W. T. Eobarts and Co." were written upon the bill by the defendant, or some one authorised by him, whilst the same was in his custody; and the jury found by their verdict that the defendant and the said W. T. Eobarts did accept the bill of exchange; but at the time the clerk redelivered the bill of exchange to the clerk of the plaintiffs, the words " 24th May, 1820, at Messrs. Eobarts, Curtis and Co., W. T. Eobarts and Co." were inked and written over, so as with great difficulty to be decyphered. The defendant did not offer any evidence to account for the obliteration of the acceptance. The bill itself...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Warwick v Rogers and Others
...J. There may be a distinction between a cheque and a bill of exchange. Maule J. There may be several parties to a bill.] In Cox v. Troy (5 B. & A. 474), where a drawee, having once written his acceptance upon a bill with the intention of accepting it, afterwards changed his mind, and before......
-
G. Simson, R Stephenson, and Thomas Freen against Benjamin Ingham, the Heir of one Joshua Ingham, Deceased, and the said Benjamin Ingham, Joshua Ingham, James Taylor Ingham, and Others, Devisees of the said Joshua Ingham, Deceased
...plaintiffs themselves, and are to be considered as of no validity with respect to others. Manning v. Western (2 Veru. 607), Cox v. Troy (5 B. & A. 474). The meaning of an appropriation by the receiver at the time of payment is, that he shall appropriate on the first [71] occasion of there b......