Johnson and Others v The Duke of Marlborough
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 February 1818 |
| Date | 17 February 1818 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 657
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
2aTABK.at JOHNSON V. DUKE OF MARLBORO UGH 657 [313] Feb. 17th, 1818. johnson and others v. the duke of mablbobough. (Action by the indorsee against the acceptor of a note, the date of which appears to have been altered by the acceptor ; it lies on the plaintiff to shew, that the alteration was made previous to the indorsement of the note, by the drawer to whose order it was made payable.) This was an action by the plaintiffs as the indorsees of a bill of exchange, dated January the 29th, 1817, drawn by Woodison on the defendant, payable to the order of th_e drawer, three months after date, and endorsed by him to the plaintiffs. Upon the production of the bill, it appeared to have been dated originally on the 29th of December 1816 ; the alteration appeared to have been made by the defendant, who had signed his acceptance immediately below the altered date. The usHal evidence of hand-writing having been given, and Abbott J , having intimated, that it was necessary for the plaintiffs to prove, in addition to this, that the biH had not been indorsed before the alteration and acceptance ,- Comyn, for the plaintiffs, submitted that it was incumbent on the defendant to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Same v Bateman
...be altered by eotisent of all before it is negotiated, for in fact it is no bill till negotiated. 5 B. & A. 674, Do-tunes v. Richardson. [2 Stark. 313, Johnson v. Diike of Marlhorough. 1 Dowl. N. S. 802, Wright v. Inshaw. The doctrine in Pigofs case (11 Rep. 27), that a material alteration ......
- Prentice v Cummins (No 6)