Delauney v Mitchell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 December 1816 |
| Date | 09 December 1816 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 522
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Monday, Dec 9th, 1816. delauney v. mitchell. (Notice having been given in an action on a bill of exchange that the want of consideration will be set up as a defence, it is not competent to the plaintiff, after * See Dobson v. Bolton, 1 Park, 177, 7th ed ; Macdougall v. The Royal Exchange Assurance Company, 4 Campb. 283, and supra, 130. 1 STARK. 440. REX V. GASH 523 he has closed his case, to go into evidence of consideration in reply to the defendant's case. A being a creditor of B's, and having deeds in his possession as a security for the debt, receives a bill indorsed by B for the purpose of getting it discounted, he cannot disappropriate the bill, and maintain an action upon it against the acceptor.) This was an action by the plaintiff as the indorsee of a bill of exchange against the defendant as the acceptor. [440] Scarlett for the plaintiff having adduced the usual documentary proofs, was inclined to rest his case there, intimating that if in the course of the caune it should become necessarv, he was prepared to prove the consideration given for the bill. The Attorney-General insisted, that since notice had been given that one ground of defence was the want of consideration, it would not be competent to the plaintiff, after having closed his case to go subsequently into such evidence. Lord Ellenborough held, that after such notice he could not It appeared that the bill had been drawn by Elizabeth Clewer on the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v Smith
... ... 7 In Delauney v. Mitchell (1816) 1 Stark, 439, an action on a bill of exchange in which notice had been given that want of consideration would be set up as a ... ...
-
Doe Ex d Bulkeley v Wilford
...Wilford waa seised of seventeen messuages in Chelsea , and in order to explain what messuages were intended (a) In DelaiiHey v. M^tchell, 1 Starkie, 439, Lord Ellenborough ruled, that after notice had been given that want of consideration would be insisted on as a ground of defence, it was ......