Kershaw Et Alt. v Cox
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1799 |
| Date | 01 January 1799 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 603
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS.
[246] Same day. kershaw et alt. v. Cox. (Where a bill of exchange was put into circulation by indorsement, though it wanted the words " or order," the insertion of those words by the drawer, with the consent of the parties, neither vitiates the instrument, nor makes a new stamp necessary.) This was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover the value of a bill of exchange. The bill was drawn by Collier and Son, in favour of the defendant, who had indorsed and delivered it to one Kershaw, who was the son of one of the plaintiffs : he was indebted to the plaintiffs at the time ; and remitted it to them in discharge of his debt. The bill was dated the 1st of August. On the 2d of August the bill was sent back by the plaintiffs, on discovering that the words " or order " were wanting ; so that the hiB eonld not be negotiated by indorsement. Ottreeivmg it back. Kejshaw, the son, applied to the defendant, who referred him to Collier ; by whom the words " or order " were inserted. This was all done on the 2d of August, on which day the bill was returned to the plaintiffs. The bill became due the 4th of November. On the 16th of August preceding, Kershaw, the son, was informed by the plaintiffs, that the bill had been refused acceptance ; and he gave notice of it immediately to the defendant who insisted that the bill was a good one, and would be paid Before the bill became due, Walley, the drawee, and Collier became bankrupts. On the 1th of November, Kershaw, the son, received back the bill from the plaintiffs, noted ics non- [247] -payment : he took it immediately to the defendant, who refused to pay it. The biB was properly stamped. Erskine, for the defendant, contended, that the plaintiff should be nonsuited : he relied, first, On the case of Masters v M tiler, 4 Term Rep. 320, That the defendant did not consent to the alteration by Collier, which brought it within the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Same v Bateman
...and other instruments: an alteration may be made in correction of a mistake, and in furtherance of the original intention of the parties; 3 Esp. 246, Kershaw v. Cox. [6 M. & S. 142, Jacobs v. Hart. 11 A. & E. 31, Byrmn v. Thompson. 3 P. & D. 71, S. C. Ry. & Moo. 37, Brutt v. Picard. 2 M. & ......
-
Nicholl v Hicksons
...7 Ad. & E. 116, note. Paul v. Meek 2 Young & J. 116. Rex v. Reeks 2 Ld. Ray. 1445. Waller v. HorsfallENR 1 Camp. 502. Kershaw v. CoxENR 3 Esp. 246. CHARTER-PARTY — STAMP — PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. MICHAELMAS TERM, FOURTH VICTORIA. 73 that these two pleas put the correct construction upon this c......