Horsefall v Davy
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1817 |
| Date | 01 January 1817 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 194
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S C. 1 Stark. 169.
[147] Second Sittings at Westminster HORSEFALL V. DAVY. (The fourth section of stat. 11 Geo. II. c. 19, which, in the case of goods carried away to avoid payment of rent, gives a summary remedy before two magistrates, White v. Cuyler, 6 T. K. 176. But though the act done must be the act of the principal, and not of the attorney who is authorised to do it; yet, if the deed be executed in the principal's name, it matters not in what form of words such execution is denoted by the signature of the names; as if opposite the seal be written " for J. B. (the principal), M. W. (the attorney) L. S." Wills v. Back, 2 East, 142. * In case a bill be lost, the finder may confer a title by transferring it , in the same manner if it be stolen. MiUer v. Race, Burr. 452 So, in Lawson v. Weston it was decided, that the holder for value of a bill indorsed in blank by the payee,was entitled, to recover against the acceptor, although the bill appeared to have been stolen from some prior holder, who immediately advertised his loss. 4 Esp. 56. But if the bill be not assignable otherwise than by indorsement, the finder cannot transfer a title. Where however it is transferable by mere delivery, and has been lost ; or where, being transferable by indorsement, it has been lost after a blank indorsement, no action can be brought upon it. And the offer of an indemnity will not render such action maintainable. See Pier son v Hutckinsou, 2 Camp 211, in which Lord Ellenborough held, that an action at law could not be maintained against the acceptor of a bill of exchange whick was lost, after being indorsed, although a bond of indemnity had been tendered to the defendant. In ex parte Greenway, 6 Vesey, 1812, Lord Eldon, C. said, " he could never understand by what authority Courts of Law compelled parties toaecept an indemnity." Where a bill or note has been destroyed, or where it is transferable by indorsement, and has been lost before in-[146]-dorsement, or after a special indorsement only, an action may be maintained upon it, and secondary evidence admitted of its contents. Long v. Bailie, 2 Camp. 214. So, if after the acceptance of a bill, the acceptor improperly detain it in his hands, the drawer may nevertheless sue him on itf and give him notice to produce the bill, or on his default give parol evidence pf rt. Smith v. M'Clwef 5 East, 476. HOIS 148. BONDKRTT V. HENTIGG 195...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Poole v Longuevill et Al
...under the 3d section, or by summary application to two or more justices under the 4th. 9 Pri. 301, Stanley v. Wharimi. 10 Pri. 138, S. C. 1 Stark. 169, Horsefall v. Davy. M. & Malk. 175, Bromley v. Holden.]-The statute applies to the goods of the tenant only, and not to those of a stranger:......
-
Barrett in Error v Long
...has a right to complain of a statement that his house was not resÂÂpectable in his trade. Now, what is a libel ? It is as stated in 1 Starkie, 169, " A writing derogating from a man's character, " imputing bad actions or vicious principles, or tending to diminish " his respectability, or a......