Hartley v Joseph Wilkinson and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 February 1815 |
| Date | 13 February 1815 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 41
KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Subsequent proceedings, 4 M. & S. 25
[127] in the court of king's bench, at the sittings after hilary term, in the fifty-fifth year of george III., 1815. First Sittings after Term at Westminster. Tuesday, Feb. 13, 1815. hartley v. joseph wilkinson and another. (An instrument purporting on the face of it to be a promissory note payable absolutely for^he price of goods, but having an indorsement upon it, stating, that it was given on condition that if any dispute arose about the sale of the goods it should be void, is not a negotiable promissory note ) [Subsequent proceedings, 4 M. & S. 25 ] This was an action by the indorsee of a promissory note, dated 4th April 1814, whereby the defendants jointly and severally promised to pay John Foster, or order, the sum of 25, being the amount of the purchase-money for a " quantity of fir belonging to D. Hartley, and then lying in the parish of Fillingham." Upon the note was the following indorsement: " This note is given on condition, that if any dispute shall [128] arise between Lady Wray and D. Hartley respecting the sale of the within-mentioned fir, then the note to be void." It appeared that D. Hartley, the plaintiff, had bought some fir-timber from Lady Wray, at Fillingham, in Lincolnshire, which he had not paid for This same timber was sold by his agent, 'John Foster, to the defendant, Joseph Wilkinson, and it was agreed that a promissory note should be given for the value, which the other defendant was to sign as a surety After the body of the note had been written, but before it was signed by either of the defendants, a conversation arose about Lady Wray still claiming the timber, as she had not been paid for it whereupon, with Foster's concurrence, the above indorsement was written on the note, and the defendants then signed it. Abbott for the defendants...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turquand v Dawson
...contemporaneous with the making of it, is admissible for that purpose. Leeds v. Lancashire, 2 Campb. 205 ; Hartley v. Wilkinson, 4 Campb. 127 ; Stone v. Metealf, 1 Stark. 53. And though the memorandum be made on a separate paper, yet, if contemporaneous, it is admissible between the origina......
-
Stone v Metcalfe
...edward stone. " Witness, William Redin " It was contended on the authority of Leeds v. Lancashire, 2 Campb. 205, and Hartley v. Wilkinson, 4 Campb. 127, that this indorsement was to be incorporated with the note, and made the whole instrument a special agreement, which ought to have been st......
-
Samuel Anderson, in Error, v Anne Fitzgerald, Administratrix of Patrick Fitzgerald
...Administratrix of PATRICK FITZGERALD. Bowerbank v. MonteiroENR 4 Taunt. 848. Carr v. StephensENR 9 B. & C. 758. Hartley v. WilkinsonENR 4 Camp. 127. Carter v. BoehmENR 3 Burr. 1905. Scanlan v. Sceales 6 Ir. Law Rep. 367. Quin v. The National Assurance Company J. & Car. 316. Rickards v. Murd......
-
Boyd and another v Mangles and Others
...a mere partnership account A contempora-[394]-neous indorsement will qualify the eftect of a written instrument Ilaille-ii v Wilkinson (4 Camp 127), Spanow v (Jhisman (!) B & C 241) Besides, the defendants have not received notice of the oidet This was rot an absolute assignment in equity o......