Jarvis v Wilkins
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 January 1841 |
| Date | 12 January 1841 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 151 E.R. 825
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 10 L. J. Ex. 104; 5 Jur. 9.
jabvis v. WiLKtNS. Exch. of Pleas. Jan. 12, 1841.-An instrument was in the following terms-" I undertake to pay to R. I. the sum of Gl. 4s. for a suit of, ordered by D. P.:"-Held, that it was not a promissory note ; but good as a guarantee, as the consideration could be collected by necessary inference from the instrument itself. [S. C. 10 L. J. Ex. 104; 5 Jur. 9.] Assumpait on a guarantee, with counts for goods sold and delivered, and on an 826 SLATER V. HAMES 7 M. & W. 411. account stated. At the trial before the under-sherff of Middlesex, the following document was proved by the plaintiff:- "September llth, 1839. I undertake to pay to Mr. Robert Jarvis the sum of 61. 4s., for a suit of, ordered by Daniel Page. " S. W. wilkins." It appeared that the goods in question were a suit of clothes, which had been furnished to Page subsequently to the giving of the above undertaking. The plaintiff obtained a verdict for 61. 4s., leave being reserved to the defendant to move to enter a nonsuit, in case the Court should be of opinion that the instrument was not a guarantee, but a promissory note which required a stamp. [411] A rule was accordingly obtained in Michaelmas Term last, against which C. C. Jones appeared to shew cause, but the Court called upon Thomas to support the rule. The instrument in question is a promissory note, and not a guarantee ; but even if it be a guarantee, it states no consideration on the face of it, and is therefore invalid. It is, however, a promissory note. It is not necessary to state when it is payable; because, if no period be stated, it is payable ,on demand. In Ellis v. Maiison (7 Dowl. 598) an instrument in the following form was held to be a promissory note :-"John Mason, 14th of February, 18;iG, borrowed of Mary Ann Mason, his sister, the sum of .14 in cash as per loan, in promise of payment, of which I am truly thankful for." In Brook* v. ElMnx (2 M. & VV. 74), this Court said, that to constitute a promissory note no particular form of words was requisite. [Lord Abinger, C. B. This is a memorandum, that if the plaintiff will sell Page clothes, he, the defendant, will pay for them. If it had been that he would pay for clothes before supplied, it might have been different. It is only a conditional promise.] Thomas also cited tffieatley v. Williams (1 M. & W. 533), and contended that if the instrument was not a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forth and Others v Stanton, Widow
...5 Mod. 205, Stephens v. Squire. 3 Burr. 1886, Williams v. Leper.(f) A distinction was formerly taken 5 M. & W. 498, Kennawy v. Treleavan. 7 M. & W. 410, Jarois v. Wilkinx. But the rule is perfectly settled, that the consideration must appear upon the face of the instrument itself, either in......
-
Bainbridge v Wade
...to Stadt v. Lill(f).] That case is an authority for construing the instrument here as referring fco future advances. Jarvis v, Wilkins (7 M. & W. 410), [96] Russell v. Moseley (3 Br. & B. 211), Newbury v. Armstrong (6 Bing. 201), and Steele v. Hoe (14 Q. B. 431), in which last case this Cou......
-
Fisher v Provincial Bank of Ireland
...Cas. 4th series, 1099. (4) 22 Court Sess. Cas., 4th series, 16. (5) 5 Q. B. 199. (1) 53 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 125. (2) 14 T. L. R. 146. (3) 7 M. & W. 410. (4) 1 Cowp. (5) [1894] 1 K. B. 285. (6) [1894] 2 Q. B. 885. (7) Fitzgibbon's Rep. 302. (8) [1902] 1 K. B. 778. (9) 7 C. B. N. S. 374. (10) ......
-
ROBERT GRIMSHAW, Public Officer of the Ulster Banking Company, v JOHN WOOLSEY
...GRIMSHAW, Public Officer of the Ulster Banking Company, and JOHN WOOLSEY. Johnston v. NichollasENR 1 C. B. 251. Jarcis v. WilkinsENR 7 M. & W. 410. Russell v. Moseley 3 Bord. & Bing. 211. Wain v. WaltersENR 5 East, 10. Wood v. Benson 2 Cr. & Jer. 94. Thomas v. WilliamsENR 10 B. & C. 664. CA......