Ex parte George John Graham and Joachim Heinrich Claudius Satow James Black and Rupert Cope, Bankrupts
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 February 1854 |
| Date | 10 February 1854 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 43 E.R. 908
BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES.
Observed upon, Oriental Financial Corporation v. Overend, 1871, L. R. 7 Ch. 142. See Rouse v. Bradford Banking Company [1894], 2 Ch. 45.
908 EX PABTE GRAHAM 8 DE O. M. & O. 3B6. [356] Ex parte georoe john graham and joachim heineich claudius satow. In the Matter of james black and rupert cope, Bankrupts. Before the Lords Justices. Felt. 10, 1854. [Observed upon, Oriental Financial Corporation v. Overend, 1871, L. R. 7 Ch. 142. See House v. Bradford Banking Company [1894], 2 Ch. 45.] An indorsee for value of an accommodation bill, without notice that it is one of that description, may, notwithstanding notice subsequently acquired, release the drawer without releasing the acceptor. The Respondent was the indorsee for value of a bill of exchange for £288, accepted by the bankrupts. It was in fact a bill accepted for the accommodation of the drawer, but the Respondent had no notice of this when the bill was indorsed to him. After he had notice of this fact he, with the other creditors of the drawer, agreed to accept 8s. in the pound upon their respective debts, and upon payment thereof to release the drawer from all further demands. The Respondent received under this composition £115, 4s., and signed a memorandum (indorsed upon the bill), whereby he discharged the drawer from all claims and demands whatsoever in respect of the bill, and the money thereby secured. The acceptors were afterwards adjudicated bankrupts, whereupon the Respondent claimed to prove for £172, IGs., being the balance due to him upon the bill of exchange, after deducting the amount of the composition. The assignees opposed the proof, on the ground that by releasing the principal debtor the Respondent had released the bankrupts. The Commissioner admitted the proof, and the assignees now appealed. [357] Mr. Bacon and Mr. Baggallay, in support of the appeal. The Respondent, when aware that the acceptors were only sureties for the drawer, thought proper to release the latter. The bankrupts being, and being known to the Respondent to be, sureties merely, were consequently discharged, and the proof ought to have been rejected; Ex parte G-lttm tinning (Buck, 517). Mr. Chandless, for the Respondent. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial