Farrar, Calverley, and Another against Hutchinson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 January 1839 |
| Date | 23 January 1839 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 1355
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH
SAD. &E. 642. FARRAK V. HUTCHINSON 1355 farrar, calvebley, and another against hutchinson. Wednesday, January 23d, 1839. In an action brought by partners to recover a debt, if the defendant, to prove payment, gives in evidence a receipt signed by one of the plaintiffs, they are not concluded, but may shew that it was given under circumstances which destroy its effect, as fraud on the partners not signing. Assumpsit by drawers, against acceptor, of a bill of exchange for 501., payable at three months, dated 28th August 1837. Counts for goods sold and on an account stated. Plea, payment; on which plea issue was tendered and joined. On the trial before Lord Denman C.J., at the sittings in Middlesex after Michaelmas term 1838, it appeared that the action was brought to recover a balance of 261. on the above bill, drawn by the plaintiffs, partners in trade, for the price of goods sold by them to the defendant. The plaintiffs had become bankrupt after commencing the action ; and it was carried on by their assignees. The defendant, in support of his plea, put in the following memorandum, dated January 9th, 1838. "Cash and goods from Mr. B. Hutchinson, at different times, 501., and expenses to take up the acceptance given to us on the 28th August last, at three months' date, and returned to Mr. Morris, and is now in his hands. Farrar, Calverley, and Co." This receipt, though signed in the name of the firm, was written by Farrar : and declarations of Farrar were also proved, to shew that the claim in respect of the bill had been satisfied by such cash and goods. The evidence was objected to, but received. The plaintiffs proved a letter written by defendant, in April 1838, [642] admitting a balance of 231. Is. lid. due from him to the plaintiffs: and they contended that the receipt had not been given bona fide, but procured for the purposes of the cause. The Lord Chief Justice left it to the jury to say whether the receipt was given bona fide, or for the purposes suggested. The plaintiffs had a verdict for 231. Is. lid. Cresswell, in this term (a), moved for a new trial on the ground of misdirection. The question left to the jury, whether the receipt was given bona fide or not, by Farrar, could not properly arise. If the plaintiffs had been continuing the action in their own right, they could not have raised the suggestion of mala fides...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Veale v Warner
...may have been induced by it to alter his condition. 3 B. & C. 421, Skaife v. Jackson. 5 D. & K. 290, S. C. 3 B. & Ad. 318, Graves v. Key. 9 A. & E. 641, Farrar v. Hutchinsm.] And it has been held that a receipt and release for the consideration money contained in a deed, is not conclusive. ......
-
Cesarini v Ronzani
...an account stated; Fesenmayer v. Adcock, 16 M & W 449. (e) The same point ruled Burton v. Payne, 2 Car &, P 603 (/) Farrer v. HutcJimson, 9 A & E 641 , 8 L. J., Q B. 107. English Reports Citation: 175 E.R. 754 QUEEN'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER Cesarini and Ronzani cesarini v ronzan......