Jones v Brooke
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 June 1812 |
| Date | 03 June 1812 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 128 E.R. 409
Common Pleas Division
[4641 As this was a new case, and no express notice of the Defendant's former discharge under the insolvent act had been served on the Plaintiff, the Court made the Rule absolute without costs. JONES V. BROOKE. June 3, 1812. In an action against the acceptor of a bill, accepted for the accommodation of the drawer, the drawer is not a competent witness to prove that the holder came to the bill on usurious consideration ; because he does not stand indifferently liable to the holder and the acceptor : for the holder can recover against him only the contents of the bill; the acceptor is entitled to recover against him both the amount of the bill, and also all damages he may have sustained, including the costs of the action against himself. This was an action upon a bill of exchange drawn on the 1st of July 1807, by J. IL Learning upon the Defendant at three months after date, for 251, 12s. payable to the drawer's own order, accepted by the Defendant, and by the drawer indorsed to the Plaintiff. Upon the trial of this cause at the sittings in Middlesex, after Easter term, 1808, before Mansfield C. J., the defence was, that the Defendant had accepted the bill for the accommodation of the drawer, who had discounted it with a person named Reeves, taking the amount in goods, which were much over-charged in price ; that Reeves had held the bill until long after it became due, since which time he had demanded payment of it, and had subsequently indorsed it over to the Plaintiff. To prove the usurious interest, the Defendant called the wife of the drawer. Shepherd Serjt. for the Plaintiff, objected that the witness was called to get rid of the drawer's own responsibility to the acceptor, who having received from him no consideration, for his acceptance, would, if he paid the bill, have an action against Learning for the amount, as money paid to his use ; and therefore, unless the Defendant should previously release him, the witness was incompetent. Mansfield C. J. reluctantly received the evidence, Shepherd in this term obtained, upon the [465] ground that the witness ought not to have beau admitted, a rule nisi to set aside the verdict, and enter a verdict for the Plaintiff. Best and Pell Serjte, in the same term, sheaved cause against this rule. This case is decided by the authority of Jordaine v. Lashbrooke, 7 T. R. 601, since which the rule no longer prevails that a person cannot be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DPP v Stonehouse
...124the Court of Appeal nevertheless declined to apply the proviso. But that conclusion was seemingly based on the mistaken belief that in Jones [1970] R.T.R.56 Sachs L.J. had laid down a general rule that the proviso ought not to be applied where that type of misdirection had occurred, whe......
-
Lewis v Smith, Esq. Treasurer of the West India Dock Company
...been delivered or re-weighed, it was hoiden that C. could not recover for it in trover against A , the first vendor. Austen v. Craven, 4 Taunt. 464 The case of Whitehouse v. Frost, 12 East, 614, may appear, on the first view, inconsistent with some of the propositions stated in this note, a......
-
Schooling and Another, Assignees of Green, v Lee
...nonsuited Puller and Wilde for the plaintiff. Gurney for the defendant. to the costs also, which followed the debt See Jones v Brook, 4 Taunt 464, Maundrell v. Kennett, 1 Carnpb 4(J8, n , Hardwicke v. Blanchard, 1 Gow, 113 From the language of the judges in the case of Eirt v. Ker^haw, 2 Ea......
-
Jordaine against Lashbrooke and Another
...of a bill of exchange against the acceptor, the latter may call the payee as a witness to prove that the bill was void in its creation. [4 Taunt. 464.] This was an action against the defendants as acceptors of the following bill of exchange; "Hamburgh 30th December 1790, for 1001. At three ......