King, Esq. v Milsom
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 February 1809 |
| Date | 15 February 1809 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1062
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Wednesday. Feb. 15, 1809. king, esq. v. milsom (Possession is prwia facie evidence of property in negotiable instruments. Therefore, in trover for a bank-note, it is not a pnma facie case for the plaintiff, to prove, that the note belonged to him, and that the defendant afterwards converted it; and the defendant will not be called upon to shew his title to the note, without evidence from the other side that he got possession of it mala fide, or without consideration. ^ Trover for a 50 Bank of England note. The plaintiff's case was, that he had lost the note from his pocket in the streets ; and that the defendant, into whose [6] possession it soon after came, was not the bona fide holder of it for a valuable consideration. The facts pioved were, that on the 18th of July 1808, the note was in the possession of the plaintiff as his property, that on the 21st of the same month payment of it was stopped at the Bank of England by his orders ; that the following day an advertisement was inserted in a newspaper taken in by the defendant, stating the loss of the note, and mentioning where it should be earned by the finder ; that it was brought into the bank on the 29th of August, and immediately traced to the defendant^ who keeps a public-house ; that he at first said he did not recollect how he came by it, and afterwards affirmed he had given change for it about a month ago to a stranger, in payment of a glass of brandy and water ; but that he can neither write nor read, and that he was accustomed to receive notes of equal amount in the course of his business. Garrow for the plaintiff insisted, that this evidece rendered it incumbent upon the defendant to shew his title to the note. To support an action of trover, it was pnma facie enough to prove that the article in question had been the property of the plaintiff, and had been converted by the defendant To be sure, the defendant might still shew that he had received it as a present from the plaintiff, that he had bought it in market overt from a stranger, that he had a lien upon it, or that in any other way the plaintiff had not the right of action which he at first appeared to have. But unless some answer were given to the case of property in the plaintiff and * In trespass rfuaie clauxinti fieqit, where the locu* in quo is stated to be in the parish of A it is enough if A has a church and overseers...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoare v Silverlock
...editor to publish proceedings in a court of justice : he is a meer volunteer. The observations of Lord Ellenborough, in Rex v. Fisher (2 Campb. 5.63), evidently shew that there was no disposition in that learned judge to allow any great latitude in cases of this sort to defendants. As to th......
-
Wallace and Two Others v Kelsall
...do so. n cases of partnership, one partner may receive payment of a debt due to the firm, and may give a receipt for it: Henderson v. Wild (2 Camp. 5(il). But in those cases there is an implied authority in one partner to receive payment of and release the partnership debts, and to deal gen......
-
Yaisarri v Clement
...; Egan r. Threllfatt, 5 Dow. & Ey. 326 , Greenstreet v. Carr, 1 Camp. 551 ; Wookey v Pole, Bart. 4 B. & A. 1, and King, Esq. v. Milsome, 2 Camp. 5. 102 YRISAERI V. CLEMENT 2 CAB. & P. 824. persons exercising, &c. to negotiate a loan or loans for the service of the said republic or state ; a......
-
Hare v Edwin Henty and George Henty
...the drawer. 'The result of the cases,' says Tindal, C. J., in Moule v. lirnum, 4 N. C. 268, 5 Scott, 694, ' from Kielifonl v. lliilge., 2 Campb. 5.'!7, to Boddinylon v. tic/ilencker, 4 13. 6 Ad. 752, 1 N. & M. .r)40, is, that the party receiving a cheque has till the following day to presen......