Hawkey v Borwick
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 May 1827 |
| Date | 09 May 1827 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 719
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 12 Moore, 478.
(!n the exchequer chamber.) hawkey v. borwick. May 9, 1827. [S. C. 12 Moore, 478.] Declaration on a bill of exchange made payable by the acceptor at the house of S., P., and S.: averment of presentment at the house of 8., P., and S. held sufficient, and that it was not necessary to aver presentment to the acceptor or to S., P., and S. Error. Tha Plaintiff below declared on a bill of exchange, drawn November 12th, 1817, by P, Campbell on W. D. Campbell, for 5001., nine months after date, payable to the order of the Defendant below. Averment, that W. D. Campbell accepted the 720 BUSZARD V. CAPBL * BINO. 1M. bill, payable at Smith, Payne, and Smith's, in London ; that Defendant below indorsed it to Moore, and Moore to the Plaintiff below ; that afterwards, when the bill became due, it was presented "at the house of Messrs. Smith, Payne, and Smith," who theu and there had notice of the several indorsements on the bill, and were requested to pay it; but refused to do so, of all of which premises the Defendant below had notice. The second count alleged a general acceptance by W. D. Campbell; a presentment bo him for payment on [136] the 15th of August 1818 ; his refusal, and notice thereof to the Defendant below at the same time; by means whereof, and in consideration of the Defendant below's liability to pay, he promised to do so. There were, also, the usual money counts. The Defendant below pleaded, first, non-aaaumpsit; on which issue waa joined. Second, that he did not undertake within six years before the exhibiting the Plaintiff's bill. The Plaintiff below replied, that the Defendant below did undertake within six years before the exhibiting of the bill. Issue thereon. The jury found that the Defendant below did undertake in manner and form as the Plaintiff below had alleged against him. The errors assigned were, that in the first count no presentment to the acceptor was alleged, nor to Smith, Payne, and Smith; and that the bill, though presented at the bouse of Smith, Payne, and Smith, might have been presented to an utter stranger to them and to the acceptor. That the days in the second count were material, and required to be proved as laid ; that the promise in that count was merely an inference of law, arising on the alleged presentment, dishonour, and notice of non-payment of the bill; and by the second plea it was pleaded, that the Defendant below did not undertake within six years of the exhibiting the bill, while there was no replication that the suit was commenced by latitat or otherwise within six years; and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fillis v Stabb
...and it is so laid down in Tidd, ; (a) Hullock, B., had left the Court during the argument, to attend at Chambers. 716 HAWKEY V. BORWICK 1 Y. & J. 376 Practice (page 304); for a trial is not lost, unless the plaintiff be prevented from obtaining a judgment of the same Term in which the writ ......