Laxton v Peat
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 June 1809 |
| Date | 23 June 1809 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1123
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
[185] in the court of king's bench, at the sittings after trinity term, in the forty-ninth year of george III., 1809. First Sittings after Term in London. Friday, June 23, 1809. laxton v peat (If the indorsee of a bill of exchange, having notice that it was accepted witliout consideration, receive part payment from the drawer and give him tune to pay the residue, he thereby discharges the acceptor.) [Doubted, but distinguished, Kernson v. Cooke, 1813, 3 Camp. 362 Over-ruled, Fentvm v. Pocock, 1813, 5 Taunt 192. Observed upon, Pooley v. Harrarhne, 1857, 7 E. & B 431 ] Action by the indorsee against the acceptor of a bill of exchange. The bill was drawn by one Hunt, and accepted for his accommodation by the *l So in an action against the indorser of a bill, the hand-writing of the drawer need not to be proved. Lambert v. Pack, 1 Salk. 127 , Lambert v. Oakes, S C., 1 Lord Baym. 443. But in an action by an indorsee against the drawer, the indorsement of the payee must be proved, although the bill with the indorsement upon it was shewn to the defendant after it was due, and he did not then object to the title of the holder Duncan v. Scott, 1 Campb 101 And in an action against the acceptor, it is necessary to prove the hand-writing of the first indorser, notwithstanding" such indorsement was on the bill at the time it was accepted. Smith v Chester, 1 T. R 654 *a Tkianote was cited in Clarkson v. Dadds, C P. sittings after T. T. cor Mansfield, C. J. wia recognised and acted upon the decision. ErTat.-Some mistakes have occurred as to the order in which the cases of Easter Term are arranged. Those from p. 117 to p 149 were tried at Westminster, and those which follow, in London. 1124 GIBBON V. COGGON 2 CAMP. 186 defendant The plaintiff gave value for it ; but had notice of the circumstances of its original formation When it became due, he received pait payment from Hunt, and gave him time to pay the remainder, without the concurrence of the defendant N G Clarke for the plaintiff contended, that the defendant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stuart v Campbell
...v. Eyre, 1842, 9 Clark & Finelly, p. 1; Raggett v. Axmore, 4 Taunton, p. 730; Kerrison v. Cooke, 3 Campbell, p. 362; Laxton v. Peat, 2 Campbell, p. 185; Bayley on Bills, pp. 210, 5 Pitman on Principal and Surety, p. 181, and Cases ibi cit.; Smith v. Ogilvie, Nov. 22, 1821, 1 S. & D., p. 169......
-
Price against Isaac Edmunds
...whereby be promised absolutely to pay a sum of money. He is a principal by the terms of his contract, and not a surety. Laxton v. Peat (2 Campb. 185), will be òcited on the other side. There the'bill was accepted for the mere accommodation of the drawer; the holder who took it, knowing of ......
-
Farquhar, Bart and Others v Southey and Others
...but never carried the bills themselves to the debit of his account. Scarlett, for the defendants, after referring to Lajcton v. Peat, 2 Camp 185, said, he should sot contend, after the objections made to that case by the Court of Common Pleas, in Fentum v. Pocock, 5 Taun 192, that thejcircu......
-
Yallop, Gent., one, Company v Ebers
...B. surety, their situation in that respect can be changed with reference to C. by an arrangement to which he is no party. Laxton v. Peat (2 Campb. 185), where it was held that an accommodation acceptor might be considered as a surety, has been long overruled. I think, then, that the defenda......