Lawrence against Jacob
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 April 1722 |
| Date | 26 April 1722 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 88 E.R. 32
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
case 26. lawrence against jacob. Thursday, 26 April 1722. In an action on a promissory note against the indorsor, the plaintiff need not alledge a demand on drawer.-S. C. 1 Stra. 515. Upon a writ of error in the Court of King's Bench upon a judgment in the Common Pleas the case was : The plaintiff, who was the executor of a second indorsee of a promissory note, broaght an action against the indorsor for default of payment by the indorsor; and after a demurrer to the declaration, and judgment for the plaintiff in the Common Pleas, A writ of error was brought in the Court of King's Bench. The error assigned was, that the plaintiff in his declaration did not set forth that the drawer had notice of the indorsement, nor any demand or default alledged in the drawer. Sed non allocatur: it being the constant form, and matter of evidence. The judgment was affirmed (a). (a) Salk. 172. Lutw. 245. (6) Saund. 319. 2 Keb. 542. Raym. 188. 1 Sid. 423. 1 Vent. 147. 1 Lev. 274. (c) See Wyml v. Stapleton, post, 69. Blackwell v. Nash, post, 105. Shelburn v. Stapleton, past, 294. Bullock v. Noke, Stra. 579. Duke of Rutland v. Hodgson, Stra. 577. Bowles v. Bridges, Stra. 832. Rhodes v. Lovit, Bunb. 70. Merit v. Rome...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Claxton v Swift
...C. 2 Show. 441, 494. S. C. Skin. 255. Yelv. 68. 1 Leon. 19. 3 Leon. 122. Cro. Jac. 73, 284. Latch, 124. Cro. Car. 75. Bunb. 199. Lutw. 880. 8 Mod. 43, 166, 242, 295, 307, 362, 373. 9 Mod. 60. 10 Mod. 109. 11 Mod. 190. 12 Mod. 36, 87, 192, 521. Comyns, 311. 1 Ld. Ray. 181, 442, 743, 753. 2 L......
-
Moore v - . in C. B
...not take the oatha at the Quarter-Sessions; it is not enough to say & hoc parat' est verificare, unless he adds per record'. 1 Com. Dig. 9. 8 Mod. 43. This was an action of assumpsit. The defendant pleaded in disability of the plaintiff, that he was a recusant convict, and says, that the pl......
-
Skip v Hook. in C. B
...demurs, and shews for cause, that the declaration did not alledge notice to the defendant of the indorsement, and relied on a case in 8 Mod. 43, Lavrrence(a) and Jacob, where, after a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, the judgment was reversed in error for that cause. Sed non allocatu......