Keable against Payne
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 June 1838 |
| Date | 06 June 1838 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 948
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 3 N. & P. 531; 1 W. W. & H. 383; 7 L. J. Q. B. 218; 3 Jur. 40.
[555] keable against payne. Wednesday, June 6th, 1838. In assumpsit for goods sold and delivered, plaintiff's case was, that defendant had received them of M., who had obtained them from plaintiff, the owner, by pretending to purchase and pay for them by a cheque drawn on a party who, as M. knew, would (a)1 P. 192, 18th ed. See the report in 1 Ld. Ray. 570 (Vasper v. Eddmaes). (a)a Williams J. had left the Court. SAD. &B.BM. KB ABLE V. PAYNE 949 dishonour the cheque: Held that, in support of this case, the cheque was S^ad- . missible in evidence, though not duly stamped. ^,, [S. C. 3 N. & P. 531; 1 W. W. & H. 383; 7 L. J. Q. B. 218; 3 Jur. 40.] Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered, and on an account stated. Plea, non assumpsit. On the trial before Bosanquet J., at the Suffolk Summer Assizes, 1836, the case for the plaintiff was, that he had exposed to sale six bullocks, his property, at Wood-bridge market; and that a person named Mann agreed with him to purchase them at the price of 1001. 7s. 6d., for which sum he gave a cheek on Messrs. Mills, Bawtree, and Co., Hadleigh Bank, payable to the plaintiff or bearer, elated Hadleigh, Lawford. The cheque was presented, and dishonoured for want of funds. Afterwards the defendant bought the bullocks of Maun; and the action was for the value of the bullocks. It was contended, for the plaintiff, that Mann knew that the cheque would not be paid, and that therefore, his transaction with the plaintiff being fraudulent, no property in the bullocks passed to Mann, nor, consequently, to the defendant. On production of the cheque, it appeared to be without a stamp; and it was shewn to have been issued by Mann to the plaintiff at Woodbridge, which is more than ten miles from the place where it was made payable. The defendant's counsel objected to the admission of the cheque in evidence; but the learned Judge received it, and directed the jury to find for the plaintiff if they were of opinion that Mann, at the time of the transaction, knew that the cheque would not be paid. Verdict for the plaintiff. Leave was given to move to enter a nonsuit. In Mi-[556]-chaelmas term, 1836, Kelly obtained a rule nisi for a nonsuit or new trial, on the question as to the stamp, and on the evidence. B. Andrews and O'Malley now shewed cause. This cheque was certainly not within the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buxton and Another v Cornish
...& D. 477), Il-'illiams v. Gerry (10 M. & W. 296), Gregory v. Fraxer (3 Camp, 454), Jartline v. Payne (1 B. & Adol. 663), Keable v. Payne (8 Ad. & E. 555 j 3 Nev. & P. 53 L); and relied particularly on the dictum of Bayley, J., in Hex v. PenAldon (15 East, 449), where he says, "Though we can......
-
The Queen against Gompertz, Lewis, William Witham, Robert Witham and Francis Witham
...the rule is not restricted to such cases. If ati instrument be used to further the crime, the same principle must apply; Keable v. Payne (8 A. & E. 555), a case of a civil action where the imputed fraud was that of a third party ; Coppock v. Bower (4 M. & W. 361). He then argued on the affi......
-
Millen against Dent
...upon the purpose for which it was produced. Thus in Regina v. Gomperiz(b), an unstamped warrant of attorney, and in Keable v. Payne (8 A. & E. 555), an unstamped cheque, were admitted in evidence to prove fraud ; and in Meed v. Deere (7 B. & C. 261), an unstamped agreement was admitted for ......
-
Holmes v Sixsmith
...J , said in Smart v Nokes (6 M & Gr 911), the instrument was terrdered "to prove an existing contmct between the parties " Keable v Payne (8 A & E 555) arrd Enthoven v Hoyle (16 Jur 272) fully support the principle, that an instrument tendered to prove the transaction void by reason of frau......