Dominus R v Bigg

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1795
Date01 January 1795
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 93 E.R. 357

COURTS OF CHANCERY, KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER

Dominus Rex
and
Bigg

dominus rex versus bigg. The writing cross the face of a bank note is properly called an indorsement. 3 P. Wms. 419. The indictment sets forth, that 19 Feb. 1714, Joshua Odams being employed and entrusted by the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, to make and sign bank notes, made and signed a bank note for 1001, payable to James White, or bearer, 901. whereof was 22 Feb. 1714, paid to the bearer, and indorsed upon the said note, which indorsement the defendant 1 Mar. 1714, erasit contra pacem, &c. The defendant pleads not guilty, and the jury find this special verdict. That Joshua Odams was employed, and made the note as in the indictment set forth, and that 901. thereof was paid and indorsed prout, &c. That the defendant 1 Mar. 1714, with a certain liquor to the jury unknown, totaliter expunxit et delevit the words, letters and figures of the indorsement. That from the time of making the Act 8 & 9 W. 3, c. 20, to 28 November 1697, the method of the company was, to write the indorsements upon the backsides of their notes in black ink. But that ever 358 MICHAELMAS TERM, 3 GEO. 1STBANOE.19. since, the method haa been, to write the payments upon the face of the notes, cross the writing in red ink; which last mentioned writing has always ever since been called and esteemed an indorsement upon such notes, sed utrum, &c. [19] This cause was argued at Serjeants Inn, in Fleet-Street, before all the Judges. And the question was, whether the fact found by the jury would come within the general words of the indictment, and could properly be called an indorsement? The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Forbes v Lloyd
    • Ireland
    • Court of Exchequer Chamber (Ireland)
    • 22 November 1876
    ...81. Verrior v. The Mayor of Sandwich Sid. 305. The King v. PatemanENR 2 T. R. 779. The King v. Venables 2 Lord Raym. 1405. Rex v. BiggENR 1 Str. 18. Jones v. Nicholas 13 . W. 361. Breese v. Jerdeen 4 Q. B. 585. Kane v. Lloyd 1 Ir. Jur. (O.S.) 208. Jacklen v. FutcheENR 14 M. & W. 381. Collin......
  • Broughton and Others against The Company and Proprietors of The Manchester and Salford Water-Works
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 6 November 1819
    ...by an agent; and they may, in consequence, be sued in assumpsit, as acceptors of these bills of exchange. In Rex v. Bigg (3 P. W. 419. 1 Str. 18), it is taken for granted, that such negotiable instruments may be issued by the Bank of England; and in Edie v. The East India Company (2 Burr. 1......
  • Guy v Hinde
    • Ireland
    • Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 18 November 1870
    ...Bench. GUY and HINDE. Young v. Glover 3 Jur. N. S. 637. Rex v. BiggENR 1 Str. 18. Exparte Yates 27 L. J. Bank. 9. Collins v. HungerfordUNK 7 Ir. C. L. 581. "Claim Endorsed" Unliquidaed Damages. VOL. V.] COMMON LAW SERIES. 247 GUY v. HINDE. Common Law Procedure Amendment Act, 1870, s. 5-" Cl......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT