Forster and Others v Clements
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 February 1809 |
| Date | 25 February 1809 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1066
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Saturday, Feb. 25, 1809. forster and others v clements. (In an action by bankers to recover the amount of a bill of exchange accepted by the defendant payable at their house, and paid by them after it was indorsed, they are bound to prove the indorsement by the payee, as v\ell as the acceptance by the defendant ) Assimipsit for money paid Plea, the general issue. This action was brought by Messrs Forster, Lubbocks, and Co bankers in London, to recover the sum of 100 paid by them to the holder of a bill of exchange accepted by the defendant, payable at their banking-house. The bill was drawn by one Hanley, payable to his own order , and when paid by the plaintiffs had his indorsement upon it Paley (of counsel for the plaintiffs) at first satisfied himself with proving the defendant's hand-writing to the bill, that it was paid by the plaintiffs , and that the defendant had then no effects in their hands. [18] Lord Ellenborough said he must go further, and give evidence of the indorsement by Hanley, to whose order the bill was payable Paley contended that pntna facie the hand-writing must be taken to be Hanley'a , and that, as it was the custom of bankers to pay a bill with the name of the payee written upon the back of it, a request from the acceptor must be understood for them to do so When this bill was presented to the plaintiffs for payment it appeared in a negotiable shape, and they were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abraham Wildey Robarts and Others v Robert Tucker
...he does it in his own wrong; Smith v. Mercer (6 Taunt. 76). But he is not bound to know the indorser's writing. Forster v. Clements (2 Camp. 17), is distinguishable from the present case; for there the banker, who had no effects in his hands, was a volunteer. Hall v. Fuller (5 B. C. 750), w......
-
Sissons against Dixon and Others
...a quantity of lace, to the defendants at their warehouse, to be forwarded to Liverpool by the " St. George " (a) See Forster v. Clements, 2 Camp. 17. 5B.&C,759. HIGGINS V. WOOLQOTT 283 steam packet, of which the defendants were owners. The parcel was never delivered, although often demanded......
-
De Tastet and Others v Baring and Others
...v. Satnuda^ ante, vol. i. p. 190. (a) Sum paid defendants for the bills, 1147, 8s. Sum demanded, 1271, 13s 4d. 1084 DUNCAN V. SKIPWITH 2 CAMP. 17. the time when these bills became due, no British subject wad liable for re-exchange upon them, and that at any rate no claim far re-exchange cou......
-
Johnson and Another v Windle and Another
...8th ed, 429), the note, when lost, was indorsed in blank. But Cheap v. Harley (&), Heads v. Goring (4 T. E. 28), and Foster v. Clements (2 Campb. 17) shew, that if a banker pays without ascertaining the indorsement to be genuine, it is at his own risk. If there has been no authorised paymen......