Hartley and Another against Manton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1843 |
| Date | 01 January 1843 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 114 E.R. 1242
IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. D. & M. 410; 13 L. J. Q. B. 61; 8 Jur. 169.
[247] hartley and another against manton. 1843. Assumpsit. 1st count on a bill of exchange for 3591., drawn at Eio de Janeiro, by Steele and Manton, on defendant, Manton, payable to plaintiffs, and accepted by defendant. 2d count, on an account stated. Plea, as to the first count and 3591., parcel of the monies mentioned in the second count, identifying the latter sum specified in the bill, and stating: that defendant and A. Steele were partners in London under the name, &c. of Manton, Steele and Co., and at Rio, in the Brazils, under the name, &o. of Steele and Manton, defendant residing and carrying on the business in England, and Steele at Rio. That the bill was drawn and indorsed to plaintiffs at Eio by Steele, in the name of Steele and Manton, for a joint debt of defendant and Steele, incurred at Rio; and was drawn upon, and accepted by, defendant in the name of the London house. That, after the drawing and indorsing, and before the acceptance, defendant and Steele, at Bio, being indebted to plaintiffs in the above sum, and to other persons in divers other sums, became embarrassed, &c., and it was doubtful whether they would be able to pay in full: and thereupon, before the acceptance, &c., and while Steele was resident at Eio, the plaintiffs and the said other creditors, at Eio, of Steele and Manton agreed among themselves, in. writing, that a liquidation of the debts of Steele and Manton should be forthwith commenced under the superintendence of Steele and others, and continued until the claims of plaintiffs and the said other creditors were paid in full, or liquidated to the extent of Steele and Manton's assets; that the holders of bills drawn by the Eio house upon the London house should be considered creditors for cash, but that their dividends should be retained till protest of the London bills for non-payment, and should be divided among the creditors if those bills were paid; and that, if plaintiffs and the other creditors should be paid in lull, the liquidation should cease. The plea then stated an agreement by Steele and Manton with plaintiffs and the other creditors that the liquidation, &c. should take place as above stated ; and it averred that afterwards, and before the acceptance, &c., the firm of Steele and Manton, by Steele, proceeded, and were, until the commencement of this suit, proceeding, to realize the effects of Steele and Manton for the purposes of the agreement. That defendant accepted the bill after the making of the agreement, being at the time resident in England, and ignorant of the premises stated to have taken place at Bio. That all the proceedings at Eio were according to the law of the Brazils, and that, by that law, the agreement and promises aforesaid were a full and absolute discharge and release of the said debt in respect of which the bill of exchange was indorsed, and 80, B.24S. HARTLEY V. MANTON 1243 defendant is, and waa, before action brought, absolutely discharged from the said cause of action in the first count mentioned, and from the cause of action mentioned in the second count as to the 3591. Replication, de injurifi,. Held, on demurrer bo the replication : 1. That the plea, as to both causes of action, was in discharge, not in excuse, and therefore the replication, even if divisible, was bad. 2. As to the first count, that the plea, if it alleged a release of the drawee* before acceptance, was bad for that reason. 3. As to the same count, that a release of the drawers, under the circumstances detailed in the plea, would be no defence to the drawees. 4. Setnble, that the plea might have been an answer to the second count, if pleaded to that only. But 5. Held that, being pleaded to both, it was wholly bad. [S. C. D. & M. 410; 13 L. J. Q. B. 61 ; 8 Jur. 1C9.] Assurupait. The first count stated that heretofore, &c., in parts beyond the seas, to wit at Bio de Janeiro, certain persons, by and under the style, &c. of [248] Steele and Manton, made their bill of exchange directed to defendant, and thereby required him to pay that their first bill of exchange, &c. to the order of plaintiffs, 3591. 6s. 9d. sterling at sixty days' sight; that defendant had sight of and accepted the bill; that sixty days after acceptance elapsed before action brought; and that the said Steele and Mantan indorsed the bill to plaintiffs; notice to defendant, and promise by him to pay plaintiffs ; breach, non-payment. The second count was in the common form for 3001. found to be due on an account stated. Plea 1 : as to the first count, and as to 3591. 6s. 9d., parcel of the monies in the second count mentioned: that the said sum of 3591. 6s. 9d., parcel, &c., so found to be due to plaintiffs on ati account stated as in the last count mentioned, is the sum of 3591. 6a 9d. specified in the said bill of exchange, &c., and the said two sums are one and the same debt, and the said bill was accepted by defendant, as in the first count mentioned, for and in respect of the 3591. 6a. 9d., parcel, &c., in the second count mentioned. That, before and at the time of the making of the promise in the last count mentioned as to the 3591. 6s. 9d. parcel, &c., and before and at the time of the making of the said bill, &c., and before and at the time of the making of the agreements hereinafter in this plea mentioned, defendant and one Andrew Steele were merchants and. copartners, in trade carrying on their business as such merchants, &e. in copartnership, to wit at London and in parts beyond the seas, to wit at Rio de Janeiro in the empire of the Brazils. That defendant and Steele carried on their said business in London under the name, style, &c. of Manton, Steele and Co., and at Rio de Janeiro under the name, &c. of Steele and Manton. That, [249] before and at the time of the making of the promise, &c. as to the 3591. 6s. 9d., parcel, &c., and before and at the time of ths making of the bill, &c., and of the agreements next alter mentioned, and before and at the time of the accepting of the said bill, &c., defendant resided and wa in England, and carried on there the said business of himself and his said copartner by and under the name, style and firm aforesaid, as such merchants and traders as aforesaid; and tha said Andrew Steele, before and at the time last aforesaid, and from thence hitherto, resided and was at Rio de Janeiro aforesaid, and carried on there the said business of himself and his said copartner by and under the said name, style, &c. of Steele and Manton as such merchants and traders as aforesaid. And that the said bill of exchange was made and drawn upon defendant, arid afterwards indorsed to plaintiffs, as in the first count mentioned, in parts beyond the seas, to wit at Bio de Janeiro aforesaid, by the said Andrew Steele, as such copartner of the said defendant aa aforesaid, by and under the aaid name, style, &c. of Steele and Manton as in the said first count mentioned, for and on account of a certain debt, to wit the sum of 3591. 6s. 9d,, at the time of the making of the said bill due and owing to plaintiffs from defendant and Andrew Steele...
To continue reading
Request your trial