Elizabeth Russell, Executrix, Company of Thomas Russell, Clerk, against Sir Thomas Philips, Baronet
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 February 1850 |
| Date | 11 February 1850 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 117 E.R. 342
QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. 19 L. J. Q. B. 297; 14 Jur. 806.
elizabeth russell, Executrix, &e. of Thomas Russell, Clerk, against sir thomas phillips, baronet. Monday, February llth, 1850. A bill of exchange, drawn 28th November 1836, payable forty-two months after date, was accepted thus : "Accepted on the condition of its being renewed until November 28th, 1844, without interest, payable by me at Messrs. Williams and Deacon's, bankers, London." Held, in an action by indorsee against acceptor, that this was a good acceptance, and that the bill was properly declared on as accepted payable on MQ. B. 892, RUSSELL V. PHILLIPS 343 28th November 1844. An acceptance of a bill of exchange must be to pay in money; and an acceptance to pay by another bill ia no acceptance. [S. C. 19 L. J. Q. B. 297; 14 Jur. 806.] Assumpsit. The first count alleged that one Thorpe, on 28th November 1836, in the lifetime of T. Russell, made his bill of exchange, directed to defendant, and thereby required defendant to pay to his (Thorpe's) order 5001., forty-two months after the date thereof: that defendant then " accepted the said bill, payable on the 28th day of November 1844, without interest:" and that Thorpe, in the lifetime of [892] T. Russell, indorsed to T. Russell. There were three other counts on three other bills respectively drawn for the same amount, accepted by the defendant and indorsed to T. Russell: and a count (which became immaterial) on an account stated. 1st. Plea to the first count. That the said supposed acceptance of the said bill was a certain writing written across the said bill on the face thereof, and signed by the defendant, which said writing was as follows: " Accepted on condition of its being renewed until November 28th, 1844, without interest, payable by me at Messrs. Williams & Deacon's, bankers, London. Thomas Phillips." That the said bill was not, nor was the acceptance thereof, renewed until the 28th day of November 1844, or at all; nor was any bill ever presented to defendant for acceptance by way of such renewal as aforesaid; without this, that defendant accepted the said bill payable on the 28th day of November 1844, modo et forma. There were similar pleas as to the acceptances alleged in the other three counts. Issues were joined on these points. The cause was tried, before "Wilde C.J., at the Surrey Spring Assizes, 1847, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff for the damages in the declaration, subject to the opinion of this Court upon a special case; the Court to have the same power of amending the record, if necessary, and if the Court should think proper, that a Judge at Nisi Prius would have. The case set out several letters with reference to the account stated ; and it also set out the bills and acceptances mentioned in the declaration. It is sufficient to give the form of the bill and acceptance [893] mentioned in the first count, as the question was the same as to all the acceptances. "5001. "London, November 28th, 1836. "Forty-two months after date pay to my order five hundred pounds for value received. "THos. thorpe." The bill was directed to the defendant, who had written across the face of the bill as follows:- "Accepted on the condition of its being renewed until Nov. 28th, 1844, without interest, payable by me at Messrs. Williams and Deacon's, bankers, London. "thomas phillips." It was agreed that the record and pleadings should be taken as part of the case. Either party was to be at liberty to apply to the Court to turn the special case into a special verdict: the Court to be at liberty to draw any inference from the facts set forth which a jury might draw. If this Court, or a Court of Error (on special verdict), should be of opinion on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Banco Popolare di Novara v John Livanos & Sons Ltd
-
Novaknit Hellas SA v Kumar Bros International Ltd
...qualify his acceptance by enlarging or diminishing the time of payment if he does so in unequivocal language, see Russell v PhillipsENR(1850) 14 QB 891, and Rowe v Young(1820) 2 Brod & B 165 at p. 190. This view also appears to have been accepted in Fanshaw v PeetENR(1857) 2 H & N 1. Moreov......
-
Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd v G D Trade Company Ltd
...Bank v Debenhams (Central Buying) LtdUNK [1979] 1 Ll Rep 548. Rowe v Young (1820) 2 Brod & B 165; 129 ER 921. Russell v PhillipsENR (1850) 14 QB 891; 117 ER 342. Bills of exchange — Whether instruments were bills of exchange — Whether bills payable on acceptance and therefore not at a fixed......
-
Fellner v Dönges, NO
...Justices of Crewkerne, 21 Q.B.D. 85; Webb v Hipkin, 1944 AD 95 at p. 102. 'Renew' is not a term of art, see Russell v Phillips (1850) 117 E.R. 342. If the respondent had wished to he could have clearly stipulated when the renewal had to be applied for. The interpretation contra stipulatorem......