Davis v Dodd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 November 1812 |
| Date | 09 November 1812 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 128 E.R. 466
Common Pleas Division
4f)6 STONE V. STONE 4 TAUNT. 600. therefore it is very improbable that the parties contemplating this the most important branch of the indemnity, should not even have alluded to it in the recital, and which it. would PO] therefore be of more consequence to state, than the other, wherein there is not a single word, that, in its proper signification, relates to future transactions. A guarantee is not to be held liable beyond the express terms of his contract, and as we therefore think that the strict and true interpretation of this condition does not extend the indemnity beyond the liability for past transactions, upon this ground the judgment upon this demurrer, must be entered For the Defendant. End of Trinity Term. [001] CAS IL9 ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS, AND EXCHEQUER-CHAMBER, IN MICHAELMAS TERM, IN THE FIFTY-THIRD YEAR OF THE REIGN OF GEORGE III. STONE V. STONE. November 9, 1812. If an attorney employed to levy a fine, mislays the papers, and does not complete it within the time required by the rule of Court Trinity term 52 G. 3, the Court will not permit the fine to be afterwards perfected, but will, if all the parties be alive, direct a new fine to be levied at the expence of the attorney. Shepherd Suit. moved that a fine might be permitted to pass, upon an affidavit that the acknowledgments were taken in April 1811, and that the parties were all alive on the third day of the present month ; and that the reason of the delay had been, not that the deponent, who was the attorney employed, bad forgotten the business, but that he had mislaid the papers, and they had become intermixed with others of his papers, and by reason thereof had only very lately been found again. [602] The Court referred to the rule promulgated in the last term, for completing fines, and refused the application ; accompanying their refusal with a direction, that as all the parties were still alive, so that there was no obstacle to the levying a new fine, a new fine should be forthwith levied at the expence of the attorney who had mislaid the papers. DAVIS v. DODD. November 9, 1812. Payment of a bill of exchange cannot be enforced without producing the bill.ùAri express promise to pay the contents of a lost bill of exchange, if given...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mƒ€™DONNELL v MURRAY
...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. MessiterENR 3 M. & S. 281. Pooley v. Millard 1 Cr. & Jer. 411. Champion v. Terry 3 Brod. & B. 295. Maynor v. JohnsonENR 3 Camp. 324. Pi......
-
Chaplin, Executor of J Harmer, Deceased v Levy
...a clause in the admission. | The following eases are authorities in support of the necessity for the production of the bill: Daw v Dodd (4 Taunt 602), Hansard v. Eubms&n (7 B & C. 90), and Poole v Smith (Holt, N P 144). [534] parke, B I think that we must assume the bill of exchange declare......
-
Johns v Mason
...in the Plaintiff, or of any consideration for the new promise alleged to be contained in the letter of February 1848: Davis v. Dodd (4 Taunt. 602). There was, moreover, no authority for the proposition upon which the suit was founded, that, after a cheque had been given, the party to whom i......
-
Bernal v Croker
...4 M. & W. 795. Lewis v. Kelly 16 L. Times, 8. Wissen v. RobertsENR 1 Esp. 261. Eastwood v. Kenyon 11 A. & E. 438. Davis v. DoddENR 4 Taunt. 602. Smith v. KnoxENR 3 Esp. 47. Fitch v. JonesENR 5 El. & Bl. 238. Wennall v. AdneyUNK 3 B. & P. 249. Eastwood v. Kenyon 11 Ad. & Ell. 447. Evans v. W......