Gibson against Hunter, in Error
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1794 |
| Date | 01 January 1794 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 126 E.R. 557
IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
S. C. 6 Bro. P. C. 255. See Sewell v. Burdick, 1884, 10 App. Cas. 99; Vagliano v. Bank of England, 1889-91, 23 Q. B. D. 258; [1891] A. C. 107. See other proceedings, 2 H. Bl. 187; 6 Bro. P. C. 235.
. BL. SM. GIBSON t . HTJNTRR 557 [288] cases argued and determined in the court of common pleas and exchequer chamber, in easter term, in the thirty-fourth year of the beign of george III. in the house o? lords. gibson against hunter, in error. 1794. [S. C. 6 Bro. P. C. 255. See Semell v. Burdick, 1884, 10 App. Gas. 99 ; Vagliano v, Bank of England, 1889-91, 23 Q. B. D, 258 ; [1891] A. C. 107. See other proceedings, 2 H. Bi. 187; 6 Bro. P. C. 235.] A. draws a bill of exchange on B. payable to a fictitious payee or order, and indorsed in the name of such payee, which B. accepts. In an action by an innocent indorsee for a vaJuable consideration against B. on the bill, in order to draw an inference, either that B. at the time of his acceptance knew the name of the payee to be fictitious, or that B. had given an authority to A. to draw the bill in question by having given a general authority to A. to draw bills on B. payable to fictitious persons, evidence is admissible of irregular and auspicious transactions and circumstances relating to other bills drawn by A. on B., payable to fictitious payees and accepted by B., though none of those transactions or circumstances have any apparent relation to the bill iu question, and though none of them prove that B. accepted any of those other bills with a knowledge that the payees mentioned in them were fictitious (a). A venire de novo having been awarded in this cause, (ante, 187,) it came on to be tried a second time before Lord Kenyon at Guildhall, at the Sittings after Trinity term 1793, when the Plaintiffs in error tendered a bill of exceptions to hia Lordship's directions to the jury, the record of which proceeded thus. "And the jurors aforesaid, impannelled to try the said issue being also come, were then and there in due [289] manner chosen and sworn to try the same issue, and upon the trial of the said issue so had, the said Plaintiff in maintenance of the said issue so joined as aforesaid on bis part, produced to the jury aforesaid a certain paper-writing, purporting to be a bill of exchange, in the words and figures following ; that is to say : "521 7s. "Falraouth, llth March, 1788. " Two months after date, pay to Mr. William Fletcher, or order, five hundred twenty-one pounds seven shillings, value received, with or without advice. " To Messrs. Gibson and Johnson, " nathaniel kingston, Bankers, London. " No. 2068. G. & J. " And upon which paper-writing were the following indorsements, that is to say, ' William Fletcher,' ' By procuration of Livesey, Hargreave and Company. A. Goodrich.' And the said Plaintiff thereupon proved, and gave in evidence to the said jury, that the said name of the said Nathaniel Kingston, purporting to be subscribed to the said paper-writing so produced to the said jury as aforesaid, was of the proper handwriting of the said Nathaniel Kingston, and that the said Nathaniel Kingston so subscribed the same paper-writing as the drawer of the same, and as the agent of the said Livesey, Hargreave and Co. in the said declaration mentioned, and was accustomed to draw bills of exchange for them, iu his own name as their agent, and that the said Nathaniel Kingston resided at Falmouth, in the county of Cornwall, and that no such person as William Fletcher the supposed payee, in the said paper-writing mentioned, ever existed; and that the name of William Fletcher contained in the same paper-writing vfas merely fictitious, and that tha said paper-writing so subscribed by the said Nathaniel Kingston, and before the same was indorsed with the name of ' A. Goodrich, by procuration of Livesay, Hargreave and Co.,' and also before the letters (a) [So on an indictment for uttering a forged note knowing the same to be forged, evidence that the prisoner haa passed other forged notes is admissible. Rex v. Wylie, \ Bos. & Pul. N. E. 92. Rex v. Ball, \ Campb. N. P. C. 324, Russ, & Ry. C. C, 133. S. C. Rough's case, Russ. & Ry. 120.] 5|58 GIBSON V. HUNTER 2 H. BL. 290. and figures No. 2068, and the letters G. and J, were subscribed thereto, was sent by the said Livesey, Hargreave and Co. being the same persons mentioned and described in the said indorsement, by the name or firm of Livesey, Hargreave and Co. to the said Defendants for their acceptance, who accordingly accepted the same, by subscribing thereto the said letters and figures [290] No. 2068, and also the said letters G. and J. as the initials of their respective surnames. That the indorsement of the name of William Fletcher upon the said paper-writing produced in evidence, was made by a clerk of the said Livesey, Hargreave and Co. whose name was not William Fletcher. And that the said bill was afterwards indorsed with the words, ' by procuration of Livesey, Hargreave and Co. A. Goodrich,' by the said A. Goodrich, a clerk of the said Liveaey, Hargreave and Co., for and by procuration of the said Livesey, Hargreave and Co., and paid and delivered by them to the said Plaintiff for a valuable consideration, then paid to thorn by the said Plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johaadien v Stanley Porter (Paarl) (Pty) Ltd
...erken is as 'n geldige verweer by 'n condictio indebiti. So ook is die vereiste wat in Strachan v Blackbeard and Son, 1910 AD 282 op bl. 288, en in Monzali H v. Smith, 1929 AD 382 op bl. 385, vir 'n estoppel by lasgewing in die omstandighede van daardie sake gestel is, kwalik van nalatighei......
-
Johaadien v Stanley Porter (Paarl) (Pty) Ltd
...erken is as 'n geldige verweer by 'n condictio indebiti. So ook is die vereiste wat in Strachan v Blackbeard and Son, 1910 AD 282 op bl. 288, en in Monzali H v. Smith, 1929 AD 382 op bl. 385, vir 'n estoppel by lasgewing in die omstandighede van daardie sake gestel is, kwalik van nalatighei......
-
Du Plessis v Joubert
...Power Co v Consolidated Langlaagte Mines Ltd., 1915 AD 1 te bl. 31; Mulligan, Mora, 698 A.L.J. 1952, bl. 276; Mulligan, Mora, 69 S.A.L.J. te bl. 288 - 390. In die alternatief nog aanhangsel 'C' nog 'E' bepaal wanneer transport verskaf moet word. Derhalwe was dit 1968 (1) SA p591 nodig dat a......
-
Sefuthi v Minister van Justisie en 'n Ander
...feit is dat bedoelde uiteensetting nie verskil van Regter VAN DEN HEEVER se opsomming in die Lubbe saak nie. Sien Malherbe se saak, supra op bl. 288. Wat die tweede B respondent betref, het die appellant nie in sy dagvaarding bewerings gemaak 'which, if proved, establish jurisdiction on the......