Hume against Peploe
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 January 1807 |
| Date | 27 January 1807 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 103 E.R. 306
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Applied, Poole v. Tumbridge, 1837, 2 M. & W. 225.
hume against peploe. Tuesday, Jan. 27th, 1807. A plea of tender after the day of payment of a bill of exchange, and before action brought, is not good ; though the defendant aver that he was always ready to pay from the time of the tender, and that the sum tendered was the whole money then due, owing, or payable to the plaintiff in respect of the bill, with interest, from the time of the default, (a)1 Co. Lit. 42. (of 4 Burr. 2208. (5) 5 Term Eep. 471. 8 EAST, 169. HUME V. PEPLOE 307 for the damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the non-performance of the promise. [Applied, Poole v. TuniMdge, 1837, 2 M. & W. 225.] This was an action by the indorsee against the acceptor of a bill of exchange for 571. 15s. drawn the 21st of January 1805, payable at six months after date. Plea- that the plaintiff ought not to maintain his action thereof against the defendant to recover any more or greater damages than 591. 12s. 6d. in this behalf; because that after making the promise, &c. and after the expiration of the time appointed for the payment of the said bill of exchange, and before this action commenced, viz. on the 19th of November 1805, he was ready and willing, and then tendered to pay to the plaintiff the said 591. 12s. 6d. then being the whole money which had become due, or was then owing or payable by the defendant to the plaintiff, upon and in respect of the said bill of exchange, with lawful interest thereon, for or in respect of the damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the non-performance of the said promise. The defendant then averred that he always from the time of the making of the said tender to the plaintiff of the 591. 12s. 6d. hitherto hath been, and still is ready to pay to the plaintiff the said 591. 12s. 6d.; and now brings the same into Court, &e. Replication- that after making the said promise, [169] and when the bill became due and payable, it was presented for payment to the defendant, who was required to pay it; but that the defendant did not pay it, but wholly made default, &c. The rejoinder, admitting such default, stated that after the bill had been so presented for payment, and after such default, and before this action commenced, the defendant tendered to the plaintiff the said 591. 12s. 6d. now brought into Court, in manner and form as in the plea alleged; the said 591. 12s...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Birks v Trippet
...S. C. 10 Mod. 81. 1 Lutw. 227, Johnson v. Mapletoft. Willes's Eep. 632, Haldenby v. Tuke. 8 Term Rep. 629, Sriggs v. Calverly. See also 8 East, 168, Hume v. Peploe.(f) Formerly pleas of tender were considered in the light request. (See also 5 B. & A. 712, Amory v. Broderick. 1 Dowl. & Ry. 3......
-
Walker v Barnes
...on the morning of the 13th the Defendant made the tender, which was an exercise of all reasonable diligence : the case of Hume v. Peploe, 8 East, 168, was decided on the defective form of pleading the tender ; namely, that the Defendant was ready to pay from the time of making the tender. H......
-
Rogers v Bolton
...v. Martin 3 Wills. 5. Palmer v. TrevorENR 1 Vern. 262. Kelly v. SmallENR 2 Esp. 716. Alban v. PritchettENR 6 T. R. 680. Hume v. PeploeENR 8 East 168. Poole v. Tumbridge 2 M & Wels. 223. Miles v. WilliamsENR 10 Mod. 247. Debenham v. MellonELR 5 Q. B. D. 394. Husband and wife — Promissory not......
-
Bennett v Parker, and Others
...v. Hartis, 1 Ld. Ray. 254. Sweatland v. SquireENRENR 2 Salk. 623; S. C. sub nominee Whitlock v. Squire, 10 Mod. 81. Hume v. PeploeENR 8 East, 168. Johnson v. ClayENR 7 Taunt. 486. Murphy v. Nugent 6 Ir. Jur. 302. Hughes v. Shaw. 7 Ir. Jur. 292. Pleading Plea of Tender Demand and refusal Ave......