Hill et Al v Lewis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 124
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER.
Q. If Tassell and Lee v. Lewis, 1 Ld. Raym. 743, is not S. C.
Referred to, Steele v. M'Kinley, 1880, 5 App. Cas. 772.
[132] 19. hill & al. versus lewis. [Q. If Tassell and Lee v. Lewis, 1 Ld. Eaym. 743, is not S. C.] [Referred to, Steele v. M'Kinley, 1880, 5 App. Gas. 772.] H. indorsed two notes in satisfaction of a debt, and before receipt the drawer broke. Quere, Whether the indorser could be charged? Mod. Cases 37. Skin. 410, S. C. Holt 116. See 6 Mod. 147. 2 Stran. 1175. Cornyris 57. Action upon the case for 1701. 10s. The plaintiff declared several ways, viz. 1st, Upon two bills of exchange against the indorser. 2dly, Upon a mwtvalus. 3dly, An indebifatus assumpsit for money laid out for the use of the defendant. Upon non assumpsit pleaded, the case upon evidence was, Moor a goldsmith subscribed two notes payable to the defendant; the defendant on the 19th of October indorses these two notes, and gives them and eight others to one Zouch, to whom he was indebted : Zouch, the 19th of October, betwixt the hours of eleven and twelve, brought these notes to the plaintiffs, being goldsmiths, and they accepted them, and gava to Zouch other bills^ and some money ; and afterwards, the same day, the plaintiffs received money upon other bills of the said Moor, and might have had the money due upon these two bills, if they had been demanded; but in the night following, about midnight, Moor broke and ran away; and whether the plaintiffs or indorser should lose this 1701. 10s. was the question. And the first question was, whether the acceptance of these bills in satisfaction for so much money, be a good discharge of the indorser? And Holt C.J. held, that goldsmiths bills were governed by the same laws and customs as other bills of exchange; and every indorsement is a new bill, and so long as a bill is in agitation, and such indorsements are made, all the indorsers and every of them are liable as a new drawer. That by the law generally, every indorsee is always liable as the first drawer, and cannot be discharged without an actual payment, and is not discharged by the acceptance of the bill by the indorsee; but by the custom this is restrained, viz, the acceptance is intended to be upon this agreement, sc. that the indorsee will receive it of the first drawer (a), if ,he can, and if he cannot, then that the indorser will answer it; as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v Evans
...Act of a servant binds not his master, unless he acts by authority of his master, or he consents. See 2 Lev. 172. 3 Lev. 252. Comber. 451. 1 Salk. 132, 133. Winch 24, 25. 5 Mod. 398, 399. 6 Mod. 36, S. C. 3 Salk. 118. Cases B. R. 521. Holt 120. 1 Bulst. 103. R. ace. 10 Mod. 109. Fide 1 Bl. ......
-
Enthoven v Hoyle and Another
...the instrument, he thereby made it, as against himself, a promissory note. "Every indorsement," says Holt, C. J., in Hill v. Lewis, 1 Salk. 132, " is a new bill, and so long as a bill is in agitation, and such indorsements are made, all the indorsees, and every of them, are liable as a new ......
-
Moore v Jervis
...the indorsement of the note by Timmis, any action upon it against the maker must be brought in the name of Timmis. (Hill v. Lewis, 1 Salk. 132.) Mr. Eussell and Mr. F. T. White, for the Plaintiff. Upon the face of the note there is not the slightest reference to the trust. Money is lent by ......
-
Hull v Pitfield
...had paid it, and that the note was thereby absolutely discharged and satisfied; and that what is laid down by Holt in Hill v. Lewis, 1 Salk. 132, is good law, viz. that by law generally every indorsor is always liable as the first drawer, and cannot be discharged without an actual payment, ......