Davies v Dodd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 June 1817 |
| Date | 12 June 1817 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 146 E.R. 431
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
in the exchequer chamber. (coram richards, loud CHiEt' baron.) davies v. dodd. Thursday, 1 2th .June IcSlT. - The indorsee of a bill of exchange which has been lost, has a remedy against the acceptor by bill in equity to compel payment, and that although he might have recovered on the bill at law, his equity being founded on the want of power in a court of law to impose terms on the plaintiff of giving the defendant security against the forth-corning of the bill, which would have been good ground for ati injunction to restrain such an action. - Nor is it any answer to such a suit that the bill of exchange was a mere accommodation bill ; that the plaintiff might have applied before ; or that the drawer has since become insolvent. - The plaintiff is not bound in a court of equity to institute such a suit within any particular period. - It is not necessary to make the drawer a party. This bill, which was tiled in blaster Term 181:$, prayed for relief, and that the defendant, who was tho acceptor of a bill of exchange, dated 4th March 1812, might. be decreed to pay to the [177] plaintiff (the indorsee) 951. 9s. the amount of the bill. It had been drawn by a person of the name of Allen, and made payable to his order, and he had endorsed it to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration. The hill stated that the plaintiff had proposed to give the defendant an indemnity against any demand which might be made on him in respect of the bill. It was proved that the bill had been lost by the plaintiff's agent, and had been frequently advertised by the plaintiff, offering a reward for its recovery, without effect. The defendant stated in his answer, that no other indemnity had been offered to him than the bond of the plaintiff, which he (the defendant) had rejected, as tho plain ti IT was in insolvent circumstances ; but that, if a sufficient indemnity had been offered, he would have accepted it, and would have paid the bill. Trollope, for the defendant, objected in limine that the drawer ought to have been made a party, more particularly as the defendant had accepted the bill solely for his accommodation, and without any consideration or value received, as was known to the plaintiff when he took it from the drawer, and that he had not kept any copy of it. Martin and Parker, for the plaintiff', submitted [178] that Allen (the drawer) was not a necessary party, nor could the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mƒ€™DONNELL v MURRAY
...2 Ves. 38. Tercese v. Geray Finchƒ€™s 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. D......
-
Penfold v Nunn
...Mr. Knight, in support of the bill. If the drawer were within the jurisdiction, he would not be a necessary party, Davies v. Dodd (4 Price, 176); Macartney v. Graham (ante, vol. ii. p. 285); Hodgson v. Murray (Ibid. 515). It appears, by the allegations in the bill, that Penfold has no inter......