Jewell v Parr
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 May 1853 |
| Date | 27 May 1853 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 138 E.R. 1460
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 1 C. L. R. 454; 22 L. J. C. P. 253; 17 Jur. 975. Referred to, Ryder v. Wombwell, 1868, L. R. 4 Ex. 39; Steward v. Young, 1870. L. R. 5 C. P. 128; Gee v. Metropolitan Gas Company, 1873, L. R. 8 Q. B. 177; Metropolitan Railway Company v. Jackson, 1877, 3 App. Cas. 207. Dublin. Wicklow, and Wexford Railway v. Slattery, 1878, 3 App. Cas. 1171; Hall v. Jupe, 49 L. J. C. P. 729.
[909] jewell v. pake. May 27, 1853. [S. C. 1 C. L. E. 454; 22 L. J. C. P. 253: 17 Jur. 975. Eeferred to, Byder v. Wombwell, 1868, L. E. 4 Ex. 39; Steward v. Yomg, 1870, L. E. 5 C. P. 128; Gee v. Metropolitan Gas Company, 1873, L. E. 8 Q. B. 177; Metropolitan Railway Company v. Jackson, 1877, 3 App. Cas. 207. Dublin, PFicMow,. and Watford Railway v. Slattery, 1878, 3 App. Cas. 1171; Hall v. Jupe, 1880, 49 L. J. C. P. 729.] In assumpsit by indorsee against acceptor, the defendant pleaded that he accepted the bill for the accommodation of the drawer, that the drawer negotiated it for his own 13 C. B. 910. JEWELL V. PARR 1461 use and paid it at maturity, that it was delivered by the holder te the drawer, who without the consent of the defendant, and without having it re-stamped, indorsed it to the plaintiff. It appeared, on the production of the bill, that the defendant's name was written on the back, and that there was a memorandum on the face of it denoting the time of its maturity; and it was proved that the bill was delivered by the drawer to the plaintiff after that date :-Held, no evidence to shew that the bill had been negotiated by the drawer, and paid by him at maturity. This was an action by indorsee against acceptor upon a bill of exchange for 1001. drawn by one J. F. Allen, on the 12th of June, 1848, upon and accepted by the defendant, payable to Allen's own order three months after date, and indorsed by Allen to the plaintiff. As to the first plea, the jury were discharged, by consent. The second plea,-which was founded on the plea in Lazarus v. Come, 3 Q. B. 459, 2 Gale & D. 487,-stated that the bill was accepted by the defendant before it became due, at the request and for the accommodation of J. F. Allen, to enable him to raise money thereon or indorse the same for his own use before the same should become due, and not otherwise; that there never was any value or consideration for the said acceptance or payment by the defendant of the amount of the said bill, or any part thereof, except as aforesaid; that the said J. F. Allen negotiated the said bill for his own use and benefit, according to the said terms, and paid it when it became due, and the same was then delivered to the said J. F. Allen by the then holder thereof, fully paid, satisfied, and discharged; and that the said J. F. Allen afterwards, and after the said bill had been so paid, and when it was overdue, acedrding to the tenor and effect thereof, without the authority of the defendant, indorsed the said bill to the plaintiff, the same not having been re-stamped after such payment. Replication, taking issue thereon. The cause was tried before Talfourd, J., at the first sitting at Westminster in Easter Term last. The [910] defendant swore that the bill in question, with two others, was accepted by him without consideration, and for the accommodation of Allen, who was in needy circumstances, and that the bills were never presented to him for payment until shortly before the commencement of the action. The case set up on the part of the plaintiff was, that the defendant was largely indebted to Allen at the time he gave him the bills, and that in consequence of his desperate circumstances, no one had thought of applying to him for payment, until he became through his good fortune on the turf possessed of a large sum of money; and that the1' plaintiff was the holder of the bills for a bye-gone debt due to him from Allen. There was no direct evidence to shew that the bill had been paid by Allen, and re-issued. But, being produced, it was found to have Allen's indorsement upon it unobliterated, and a note on the face of it "due 15th September," which was not in the handwriting either of Allen (who was dead) or the plaintiff; nor did it appear whose writing it was. On the part of the plaintiff, it was insisted that there was no evidence to sustain the second plea,-no evidence that Allen negotiated the bill...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swain v Waverley Municipal Council
...(2001) 75 ALJR 867 at 879–880 [65]; 179 ALR 321 at 336–338. 174Ryder (1868) LR 4 Ex 32 at 39 per Willes J. See also Jewell v Parr (1853) 13 CB 909 at 916 [ 138 ER 1460 at 1463]; Metropolitan Railway Co v Jackson (1877) 3 App Cas 193 at 207 per Lord Blackburn; Bressington v Commissioner for ......
-
In the Matter of the Reservation of Points of Law under S21 Supreme Court Act (Ch37) [1983] PNGLR 287
...Prosecutor [1981] 3 WLR 395; [1981] 3 All ER 14, Instrumatic Ltd v Supabrase Ltd [1969] 1 WLR 519; [1969] 2 All ER 131, Jewell v Parr (1853) 13 CB 909; 138 ER 1460, May v O'Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654; 29 ALJ 375; [1954] ALR 671, Practice Direction [1962] 1 WLR 227; [1962] 1 All ER 448, R v ......
- Jones v Great Western Railway Company
-
Cunningham v The Frontier Ss. Company Townley v Same Mostyn v Same Lennon v Same
...the voyage. (1) 5 M. & W.405. (2) [1894] A. C. 222. (1) 3 A. C. 72. (2) 1 Q. B. D. 377. (1) [1904] A. C. 250. (1) [1894] A. C. 222. (2) 13 C. B. 909. (1) 3 C. B. (N. S.) at p. 150. (2) L. R. 3 C. P. at p. 222. (3) L. R. 1 C. P. 300. (4) L. R. 2 P. C. at p. 331. (5) 6 B. & C. 225. (1) 136 Pa......