Diplock v Hammond
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 May 1854 |
| Date | 31 May 1854 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 43 E.R. 893
BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES.
S. C. 2 Sm. & G. 141; 23 L. J. Ch. 550; 2 W. R. 500. Distinguished, Ex parte Shellard, 1873, L. R. 17 Eq. 109.
[320] diplock v. hammond. Before the Lords Justices. May 31, 1854. [S. C. 2 Sm. & G. 141; 23 L. J. Ch. 550; 2 W. R. 500. Distinguished, Ex parts Shellard, 1873, L. R. 17 Eq. 109.] A written authority, signed by a creditor, directed to his debtor and delivered to A. B. in this form :-" I hereby authorize you to pay A. B. the sum of , being the amount of my contract, he having advanced me that sum," is a good assignment, if stamped as such, without being stamped as an order for payment. This was an appeal from the decision of Vice-Chancellor Stuart, holding that the following document, which was stamped as an assignment, was admissible in evidence as such without being stamped as an order for payment of money (1):- "To the Governors and Guardians of St. Mary, Newington, Walworth, February 1st, 1853. " Gentlemen,-I hereby authorize you to pay to Mr, John Diplock, of the Walworth Road, the sum of 365, being the amount of my contract at the new workhouse, Walworth Villa, Mr. Diplock having advanced me that sum.-I remain, Gentlemen, your obedient servant, george hammond." 894 DIPLOCK V. HAMMOND 8 DE O. M. ft Q, 321. It appeared that the document was delivered by the creditor to the assignee of the debt. [321] The case is reported in the second volume of Messrs. Smale and Giffard's Reports (page 141). Mr. Craig and Mr. Welford, in support of the appeal. When the authority is not sent to the debtor, but is delivered to the assignee, it is an order for payment out of a specific fund, and must be so stamped at the time. It cannot be stamped afterwards; 31 Geo. 3, c. 25, s. 19. [the lord justice knight bruce. The words are, "I hereby authorize you to pay" (see Riissell v. Powell, 14 M. & W. 418).] That is in effect an order to pay, Ruff v. Webb (1 Esp. 129); Hutckinson v. Heyworth 9 A. & E. 375); Lucas v. Jones (5 Q. B. 949). They also referred to Lord Sraybrooke v. Meredith (13 Sim. 271); Cfreen v. Davies 4 B. & C. 235); Butts v. Swann'(2 Bro. & B. 78); Parsons v. Middleton (6 Hare, 261); Emly v. Collins (6 Mau. & Sel. 144); Fairbank v. Bell (1 B. & A. 36); Jones v. Simpson (2 B. & C. 318); Lestrange v. Lestrange (13 Beav. 281); Jenny v. Herle (2 Ld. Raym. 1361; 1 Str. 591); Haydock v. Lynch (2 Ld. Raym. 1563). [THE lord justice knight bruce referred to Evans v...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v Morgan
...L. R. 17 Eq. 109. Brice v. BannisterELR 3 Q. B. D. 569. Fisher v. Calvert 27 W. R. 301. Diplock v. HammondENR 2 Sim. & Giff 141; 5 De G. M. & G. 320. Emly v. CollinsENR 6 M. & S. 144. Firbank v. BellENR 1 B. & Ald. 36. Butts v. SwannENR 2 Brod. & Bing. 78. Braybrooke v. MeredithENR 13 Sim. ......
-
Re John Farrell; ex parte George D. Fottrell
...13 Beav. 281. Letts v. MorrisENR 4 Sim. 607. Yeates v. Groves 1 Ves. jun. 280. Diplock v. HammondENRENR 2 Sm. & G. 141; S. C., 5 De G., M. & G, 320. M'Gawen v. Smith 26 Law Jour., Ch., 8. Ex parte South 3 Swanst. 392. Ryall v. RowlesUNK 2 W. & T., L. C., 615. Firbank v. BellENR 1 B. & Ald. ......