Hodges v Steward
| 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. 117
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER.
Pasch. 3 W. & M. B. R. 1 Ld. Raym. 181, S. Case cited.
[125] 2. hodges verms steward. [Pasch. 3 W. & M. B. E. 1 Ld. Raym. 181, S. Case cited.] 3 Salk. 68, S. C. Skin. 346. Comb. 204. Case B. R. 36. Bill payable to H. or bearer, is not assignable to charge the drawer. 3 Lev. 299. 6 Mod. 36 37 3 Mod. 86. Moll. L. 2, c. 10. In an action on the case on an inland bill of exchange brought by the indorsee against the drawer, these following points were resolved : 1st, A difference was taken between a bill payable to J. S. or bearer, and J. S. or order; for a bill payable to J. S. or bearer is not assignable by the contract so as to enable the indorsee to bring an action, if the drawer refuse to pay, because there is no such authority given to the party by the first contract, and the effect of it is only to discharge the drawee, if he pays it to the bearer, though he comes to it by trover, theft, or otherwise (a). But when the bill is payable to J. S. or order, there an express power is given to the party to assign, and the indorsee may maintain an action (b). 2dly, Though an assignment of a bill payable to J. S. or bearer be no good assignment to charge the drawer with an action on the bill, yet it is a good bill between the indorser and indorsee, and the indorser is liable to an action for the money; for the indorsement is in nature of a new bill. 3dly, It being objected, that in this case there was no averment of the defendant's being a merchant, it waa answered by the Court, that the drawing the bill was a sufficient merchandizing and negotiating to this purpose. 4thly, The plaintiff declared on a special custom in London for the bearer to have this action. To which the defendant demurred, without traversing the custom,; so that he confessed ib, whereas in truth there was no such custom; and the Court was of opinion, that for this reason judgment should be given for the plaintiff; for though the Court ia to take notice of the law of merchants as part of the law of England, yet they cannot take notice of the custom of particular places (a) ò and the custom in the declaration being sufficient to maintain the action, and that being confessed, he had admitted judgment against himself. othly, It was held that a general indebitatus assumpsit will not lie on a bill of exchange for want of a consideration, for it is but an evidence of a promise...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker against Walker
...Adjoumatur (m). (a) See Cow per, 38. (b) 3 Lev. 118. (c) See Sands v. Trevilian, Cro. Car. 107, 193. (d) 1 Salk. 27. Bull. N. P. 280. (e) 1 Salk. 125. 1 Mod. 285. (/} 12 Mod. 37. 1 Vent. 152. (g) See Kyd on Bills, 100. (h) Post, 48. (i) 1 Danv. 28, pi. 12. (k) See 5 Bac. Abr. 296. (I) 4 Mod......
-
Wood v Matton
...in this case is, at all events, chargeable in respect of his indorsement, which is in the nature of a new bill or note; Hodges v. Steward (1 Salk. 125), Harry v. Perrit (1 Salk. 133), Heylyn v. Adamson (2 Burr. 669, 676). In many cases it appears that the drawer and drawee were the same per......
-
Wortley v Rayner
...a verdict was found (n) B. R. M. 3 Geo. 3, 3 Burr. 1354. (0) Cane. 11 Dec. 1749, 1 Vez. 341. (p) 1 Ld. Eaym. 743. (q) B. R. 3 W. & M. 1 Salk. 125. (r) B. R. M. 32 Geo. 2, 2 Burr. 669, 674. (s) Scacc. T. 9 G. 1, 9 Mod. 44, 47. [f] So, in Collins v. Martin, 1 B. & P. 648, it was held that bil......
-
Browne against London
...298. S. C. 1 Veut. 152. S. C. 1 Freenh 14. Ante, 14. 2 Show. . 5 Mod. 13, 367. 6 Mod. 129. 8 Mod. 373. 11 Mod. 190. 12 Mod. 37, 107, 345. 1 Salk. 125. 1 Ld. Ray. 175. 2 Ld. Ray. 753, 759. 1 Stra. 680. Gilb. Evidence, 4th edit. 110, 111. Indebitatus assumpsit for fifty-three pounds due to th......