Hansard against Robinson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 July 1827 |
| Date | 03 July 1827 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 108 E.R. 659
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 9 D. & R. 860; 5 L. J. K. B. O. S. 242; R. & M. 404 (n.). Not followed, Wright v. Maidstone, 1855, 1 K. & J. 709. Referred to, King v. Zimmerman, 1871, L. R. 6 C. P. 468; Charles v. Blackwell, 1877, 2 C. P. D. 158.
hansard against robinson. Tuesday, July 3d, 1827. The holder of a bill of exchange cannot by the custom of merchants insist upon payment by the acceptor, without producing and offering to deliver up the bill; and, therefore, it was held that the indorsee of a bill having lost it, could not in an action at law recover the amount from the acceptor, although the loss was after the bill became due, and the indorsee offered an indemnity. [S. C. 9 D. & R. 860; 5 L. J. K. B. O. S. 242 ; R. & M. 404 (n.). Not followed, Wright v. Maidstone, 1855, 1 K. & J. 709. Referred to, King v. Zimmerman, 1871, L. R. 6 C. P. 468; Charles v. Blackwell, 1877, 2 C. P. D. 158.] This was an action by the plaintiff, as indorsee, against the defendant as acceptor of a bill of exchange for 321. Is. 6d., dated the 10th of October 1823, drawn by Henry Butterworth, payable forty days after date, accepted by the defendant, and indorsed by Butterworth to the plaintiff. Plea, the general issue. At the trial before Little-dale J. at the Westminster sittings after Michaelmas term 1826, it was proved by the drawer that the defendant being indebted to him in [91] the sum of 321. Is. 6d. for books, he, on the 10th of October 1823, drew a bill on him for that sum, payable at forty days after date, which the defendant accepted. The bill was drawn on a proper stamp, Butterworth indorsed the bill in blank, and delivered it, so indorsed, to the plaintiff. The bill became due on the 22d of November 1823, but was not presented for payment until the 1st of May 1824. The defendant then offered to give in payment another bill, but before that bill was given the plaintiffs clerk lost the original bill. The plaintiff informed the defendant of the loss, and offered him an indemnity, but he refused to pay the amount unless the bill was produced and delivered up to him. Upon this evidence it was contended that the plaintiff, the indorsee of the bill, could not recover against the acceptor unless the bill were produced, or shewn to have been destroyed, because the acceptor was liable to be sued by a bona fide indorsee for value at any time, even although the bill might have been obtained by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kuwait Petroleum Corporation v I & D Oil Carriers Ltd ('The Houda')
... ... that the vessel was not to take part in an illegal scheme to avoid United Nations sanctions against Iraq. The charterers were granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the shipowners from ... Hansard v RobinsonENR (1827) 7 B & C 90 ... Kuwait Petroleum Corp v I & D Oil Carriers ... ...
-
Mƒ€™DONNELL v MURRAY
...608. Wain v. Bailey 10 Ad. & Ell. 616. Raphael v. Bank of EnglandENR 17 C. B. 161. Wookey v. PoleENR 4 B. & Ald. 1. Hansard v. RobinsonENR 7 B. & C. 90. Walmsley v. Child 1 Ves. 341. Glynn v. The Bank of England 2 Ves. 38. Tercese v. Geray Finchƒ€™s Rep. 301. Ex parte Greenway 6 Ves. 8......
-
Widders, App, Gorton, Resp
..." for and on account of " a debt, was a quasi payment, becoming an absolute discharge by the loss of the bill.] In Hansard v. Eobinson, 7 B. & C. 90, 9 D. & R. 860, K. & M. 404, n., it was held that the holder of a bill cannot, by the [580] custom of merchants, insist upon payment by the ac......
-
Bank of Montreal v. Bank of Canada and Bay Bus Terminal (North Bay) Ltd. et al., (1977) 16 N.R. 93 (SCC)
...v. Murphy, [1943] O.R. 787, refd to. [para. 62]. Pillow v. L'Espérance (1902), 22 S.C. 213, refd to. [para. 70]. Hansard v. Robinson (1827), 108 E.R. 659, refd to. [para. Pierson v. Hutchinson (1809), 170 E.R. 1132, refd to. [para. 75]. Woodford v. Whitely (1830), 173 E.R. 1243, refd to. [p......