Harrison against Courtauld
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 14
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
14 HARRISON V. COURTAULD 3 B. & AD. 37. harbison against courtauld. 1832. H. accepted a bill for the accommodation of B., the drawer, who indorsed it over as security for a debt, and afterwards became bankrupt. The indorsee entered into an agreement with the assignees, for purchasing part of the bankrupt's property, and for the arrangement of some claims which he, the indorsee, had upon the estate; and he afterwards gave them a release of all demands, no mention being made, during this transaction, of the bill, which had been dishonoured. He knew at the time of the agreement, but not when he took the bill, that it was accepted for accommodation : Held, that notwithstanding the above release, the acceptor was still liable at the suit of the indorsee. The Master of the Rolls sent the following case for the opinion of this Court:-- On the 26th of December 1826, Harrison accepted a bill of exchange of that date for 2981. drawn upon him by and payable to the order of Stephen Beuzeville, at three months after date. Harrison accepted the bill for the drawer's accommodation. Beuzeville afterwards indorsed and delivered it to Courtauld as a collateral security for a debt of 20001., which was the balance due upon certain transactions between them relative to the manufacturing of silk. Courtauld did not then know that the bill was accepted for accommodation ; but he was informed of it by Beuzeville before entering into the [37] agreement next mentioned. The bill, when due, was dishonoured. Beuzeville afterwards became bankrupt; and in October 1827 an agreement was executed between his assignees (with the assent of the creditors) and Courtauld, whereby the assignees agreed to sell a certain mill and premises, lately occupied by Beuzeville, to Courtauld for 15001., and to procure him a surrender thereof on his paying the price ; and he promised to relinquish all claims which he had on certain goods upon the premises, on being paid a sum of 2611. due to him for his work bestowed on the said goods. He further engaged, on performance of this agreement by the assignees, to execute a release to them and to the bankrupt's estate of the said debt of 20001., which constituted the whole of his demand on the estate except his claim on the goods before mentioned for 2611. A release of the 20001. and of all suits, causes of action, and demands, was accordingly executed in March 1828...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Manley against Boycot
...1852, by Macnamara for the plaintiff, and H. J. Hodgson for the defendant. The following cases were referred to : Harrison v. Courtauld (3 B. & Ad. 36), Laxton, v. Peat (2 Camp. 185), Fentum v, Pocock (5 Taunt. 192), Price v. Edmunds (10 B. & C. 578), Clarke v. Wilson (3 M. & W. 208), Adams......
-
Ewin against Lancaster
...what does it signify what came to his knowledge afterwards, if he took the bill for a valuable consideration'!" In Harrison v. Ocurtauld (3 B. & Ad. 36) it was held that the acceptor of an accommodation bill was liable to the indorsee, who had given a release to the assignees of the accepto......
- Re Pearce Duff & Company Ltd
-
Ex parte George John Graham and Joachim Heinrich Claudius Satow James Black and Rupert Cope, Bankrupts
...would be discharged in equity. He cited Manly v. Boycott (22 L. J. (Q. B.), 265); Fentum v. Pocock (5 Taunt. 192);: Harrison v. Cowtauld (3 B. & Ad. 36). [the lord justice knkjht bruce referred to Hank of Ireland v. Beresford (6 Dow. 233).] [358] Mr. Bacon, in reply. There is no hardship in......