Edmunds v Groves
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1837 |
| Date | 01 January 1837 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 914
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 5 Dowl. P. C. 775; M. & H. 211; 6 L. J. Ex. 203; 1 Jur. 592. Distinguished, Bingham v. Stanley, 1841, 2 B. & S. 126; 1 G. & D. 243; Bonzi v. Stewart, 1842, 4 Man. & G. 330. Referred to, Anmirtolall Bose v. Rajoneekant Mitter, 1875, L. R. 2 Ind. App. 125.
edmunds v. groves. Exch. of Pleas. 1837.-Assumpsit by indorsee against maker of a note. Plea, that the note was given for a gaining debt, and indorsed to the plaintiff with notice thereof, and without consideration. Replication, that the note was indorsed to the plaintiff without notice of the illegality, and for a good and sufficient consideration; on which issue was joined :-Held, that, on these pleadings, the illegal making of the note was not so admitted as to render it necessary for the plaintiff to give any evidence of consideration ; but that, in order to compel him to do so, the defendant ought to have proved the illegality by evidence.-An admission of a fact on the record amounts merely to a waiver of requiring proof of that fact; but if the other party seeks to have any inference drawn by the jury from the fact so admitted, he must prove it like any other fact. [S. 0. 5 Dowl. P. C. 775; M. & H. 211 ; 6 L. J. Ex. 203 ; 1 Jur. 592. Distinguished, Bwgham v. Stanley, 1841, 2 B. & S. 126; 1 O. & D. 24.'i; Bonzi v. Stewart, 1842, 4 Man. & Q. 330. Referred to, AnmirtolaU busk v. Rajuneekant Mitter, 1875, L. E. 2 Ind. App. 125.] Assumpsit by the indorsee against the maker of a promissory note. Plea (in substance) that the considera-[643]-tion for which the defendant made the note was money lost by gaming, and that it was indorsed to the plaintiff with notice thereof, without value or consideration. Replication, that the note was indorsed to the plaintiff without notice of the illegality, and for good and sufficient value and consideration, on which issue was joined. At the trial before Lord Abinger, C. B, at the Middlesex Sittings after Easter Term, no evidence was given on either side, and under his Lordship's direction a verdict was entered for the plaintiff for the amount of the note, the defendant having leave to move to enter a nonsuit, in case the Court should be of opinion that the original illegal consideration for the note was admitted on the record, and therefore that the plaintiff was bound to have given evidence that he was a holder for value. W. H. Watson now moved accordingly. By the form in which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Antonio Bonzi and Lewis Bonzi v Patrick Maxwell Stewart
...via data, whether de injuria could or could not have been replied, the allegation in question is not traversed. Edmunds v. Groves (2 M. & W. 642; 5 Dowl. P. C. 775) will also be relied upon. That was an action of assumpsit by the indorsee against the maker of a promissory note. The plea was......
-
Goff v Harris
...jury on behalf of the plaintiff. The courts appear to be at issue -as to the effect of an admission on the record. In Edmunds v. Groves (2 M. & W. 642) it was said by Alderson B. that the admission of a fact on the record amounts merely to a waiver of requiring proof of that fact; but that ......
-
Rogers against Custance
...in respect of the agreement stated in the introductory part of the plea; Bennion v. Davison (3 M. & W. 179); Edmunds v. Groves (2 M. & W. 642). The plaintiff, in a case like this, is not called upon to new assign; Freeman v. Grafts (4 M. & W. 4); James v. Lingham (e). Sir F. Pollock and G-.......
-
Smith v Martin
...action by indorsee against acceptor of a bill of exchange: plea, that the bill was an accommodation bill, and that no consideration (a) 2 M. & W. 642. See also Mcolls v. Bastard, 2 C. M. & R. 661 ; Sennion v. Damxm, 3 M. & W. 182. 9 M. It W. 309. SERLE V. NORTON 131 passed between any of th......