Gompertz v Bartlett
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 November 1853 |
| Date | 14 November 1853 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 118 E.R. 985
COURTS OF QUEENS BENCH AND THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 2 C. L. R. 395; 23 L. J. Q. B. 65; 18 Jur. 266; 2 W. R. 43. Followed Gurney v. Womersley, 1854, 4 El. & Bl. 142. Not applied, Hall v. Conder, 1857, 2 C. B. N. S. 41, 53. Referred to Kennedy v. Panama, New Zealand and Australian Royal Mail Company, 1867, L. R. 2 Q. B. 587. Applied, Megan v. Molloy, 1878, 2 L. R. Ir. 541; Leeds and County Bank v. Walker, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 87. Discussed, Joliffe v. Baker, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 272. Distinguished, Raphael v. Burt, 1884, 1 Cab. & El. 378.
[849] henry gompertz against thomah bartlett. Monday, November 14th, 1853. An unstamped bill of exchange, indorsed in blank, purporting to be a foreign bill, was sold, without recourse, by the holder, who was not a party to the bill. It proved to have been drawn in this country, and was therefore unavailable for want of a stamp, and could not be enforced against the parties. The vendor and purchaser at the time of the sale were both alike ignorant of this defect.-Held : that the purchaser was entitled to recover back the price from the vendor, on the ground that the article sold as a foreign bill did not answer the description by which it was sold. Though it would have been otherwise (the sale being without any warranty, and there being no fraud) had the latent defect been one consistent with the article being a foreign bill. [S. C. 2 C. L. R. 395; 23 L. J. Q. B. 65; 18 Jur. 266; 2 W. R. 43. Followed, Gurney v. Womersley, 1854, 4 El. & Bl. 142. Not applied, Hall v. Conder, 1857, 2 C. B. N. S. 41, 53. Referred to, Kennedy v. Panama, New Zealand and Australian Royal Mail Company, 1867, L. R. 2 Q. B. 587. Applied, Megan v. Molloy, 1878, 2 L. R. Ir. 541; Leeds and County Bank v. talker, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 87. Discussed, Joli/e v. Baker, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 272. Distinguished, Raphael v. Burt, 1884, 1 Cab. & El. 378.] Action for money had and received. Plea: Never indebted. Issue thereon. On the trial, before Lord Campbell C.J., at the sittings at Guildhall after last Trinity Term, it appeared that the defendant, in London, sold to the plaintff a bill of exchange purporting to be drawn at Sierra Leone by Jolly & Co. of that place on Bellot & Co. of London, and accepted by Bellot & Co. payable to the order of a third person in London. The instrument was indorsed in blank by the payee : it was unstamped; but both parties believed it to be a foreign bill and consequently to (a) Wightman J. was at Guildhall. 986 QOMPEHTZ V. BARTLETT 2 EL. * BL. 880. require no stamp. The defendant did not indorse the bill; and it was a sale without recourse, The plaintiff paid 8151. to the defendant, as the price...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hamilton Finance Company Ltd v Coverley Westray Walbaum & Tosetti Ltd
-
Lecky v Walter
...30. (1) 1 H. L. C. 605, at pp. 632-3. (2) 5 A. C. 925, at p. 937. (1) [1905] 1 Ch. 326. (2) L. R. 2 Q. B. 580. (1) L. R. 2 Q. B. 580. (1) 2 E. & B. 849. (2) 4 E. & B. ...
- Mcrae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission
-
Loughnan v Barry and Byrne
...7 Taunt. 59. Hill v. PerrottENR 3 Taunt. 274. Abbotts v. Barry 5 B. Moo. 98. Perkins v. Smith 1 Wils. 328. Gompertz v. BartlettENR 2 E. & B. 849. Polehill v. WalterENR 3 B. & Ad. 114. Milne v. MarwoodENR 15 C. B. 778. Dixon v. YatesENR 5 B. & Ad. 313. Tooke v. HollingworthENR 5 T. R. 231. M......