Crowe v Clay
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 February 1854 |
| Date | 01 February 1854 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 156 E.R. 258
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 23 L. J. Ex 150, 18 Jur. 654, 2 W. R 204 Adopted, Edwards v. Walters, [1896] 2 Ch. 157. Referred to, Charles v Blackwell, 1877, 2 C. P. D. 158
[604] crowe v. clay. Feb. 1, 1854.-The loss of a negotiable bill, given on account of a debt, is an answer to an action for the debt as well as to one on the bill.-Declaration for goods sold and delivered, and for money clue to the plaintiff on a bill of exchange, drawn by him on and accepted by the defendant. Plea, that before action the plaintiff dtew on the defendant a bill of exchange for the amount, payable to the plaintiff's order five months after date, which the defendant accepted and delivered to the plaintiff for and on account of the said sum; and the plaintiff afterwards lost the bill out of his possession, and from thence hitherto the same has remained so lost, and the plaintiff has been unable to produce it, and ceased to have any power or control over it, and the defendant has never since the said loss found such bill nor known where it was to be found, nor had any power or control over it -Held, in the Exchequer Chamber (reversing the judgment of the Court of Exchequer), that the plea was good on general demurrer, although it did not allege that the bill was o\erdue, for to entitle the plaintiff to sue he ought to be the holder of the bill and the bill ought to be due; and consequently the defendant might rely on his defect of title in either of these respects, leaving the other unnoticed. [S. C. 23 L. J. Ex 150, 18 Jur. 654 , 2 W. E 204 Adopted, Edwmds \. Waltets, [1896] 2 Ch. 157. Keferred to, Chailes v Blackwell, 1877, 2 C. P. D. 158 ] Error on the judgment of the Court of Exchequer, in the case of Clay v. Cioive (a) Dowdeswell argued for the plaintiff in error (the defendant below) in last Tiimty Vacation (b) (June 17). The plea affords a good defence to the action The judgment of the Court of Exchequer proceeded on the ground that the plea did not shew that the bill had arrived at maturity, and, assuming that it was still running, its loss was no answer to the plaintiff's claim. But irrespective of the allegation of the loss of the bill, the plea discloses a sufficient prima facie defence, for it states that the bill was given " for and on account of" the debt. According to the authority of Keen slake v. Morgan (5 T. R. 513), which has been followed by Belshaw v Bush (11 C. B 191)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mƒ€™DONNELL v MURRAY
...1 Exch. 167. Wain v. Bailey 2 Per. & D. 507. Charnley v. GrundyENR 14 C. B. 608. Clay v. CroweENRENR 8 Exch. 295; S. C., in Error, 9 Exch. 604. Walmsley v. Child 1 Ves. 341. Glynn v. The Bank of England 2 Ves. 38. Miller v. RaceENR 1 Burr. 452. The Guardians of Lichfield Union v. GreeneENR ......
-
Widders, App, Gorton, Resp
...custom of merchants, insist upon payment by the acceptor, without producing and offering to deliver up the bill. So, in Crowe v. Clay, 9 Exch. 604, it was held that the loss of a negotiable bill given on account of a debt, is an answer to an action for the debt as well as to one on the bill......