Macartney v Graham
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 May 1828 |
| Date | 07 May 1828 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 57 E.R. 796
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Equity. Lost Bill of Exchange. Parties.
796 MACARTNEY V. GRAHAM 2 BIM. 285. [285] macartney v. graham. May 7, 1828. Equity. Lost Bill of Exchange. Parties. A bill will lie by the last indorsee of a lost bill of exchange to recover the amount from the acceptor; and prior indorsees need not be made parties to the suit. A bill of exchange for 256, 18s. was, on the 22d of November 1824, drawn upon the Defendants, Messrs. T. and W. Graham, of Bath, by M'Lareri and Denby, payable, two months after date, to themselves or order. The bill was accepted by Messrs. Graham, and made payable by them at the banking-house of Barnard, Dimalales & Co., in London, and was afterwards indorsed by M'Laren and Denby, and by James and William M'Laren & Co., and by William M'Lareri. On the 16th of December 1824 the bill was discounted, for William M'Laren, by one Scott, who was the agent at Crieff for the Commercial Bank of Scotland, and thereupon Scott specially indorsed the bill to the Plaintiff, the manager of that bank in Edinburgh. On the 18th of December 1824 the bill was stolen from the mail-coach on its way from Crieff to Edinburgh, The Commercial Bank informed the Messrs. Graham of this occurrence, and requested them to pay the amount of the bill, and, at the same time, tendered them a bond of indemnity against all future demands in respect of it. The Messrs. Graham having refused to pay the money due on the bill of exchange, the bill in this [286] cause was filed against them only, to enforce the payment, and contained an offer, on the part of the Plaintiff, to deliver to them the bond of indemnity on the amount being paid. The Defendants put in a general demurrer for want of equity. Mr. Pemberton, for the Defendants, in support of the demurrer. The equity of this case has been decided, by Sir W. Grant, M.R., in Mossop v. Eadon (16 Ves. 430). It has, however, been lately determined, in the Court of King's Bench, that the indorsee of a bill of exchange, who had lost it, could not recover the amount, at lavr, from the acceptor. (Hansard v. Robinson, 7 Barn. & Cress. 90.) The ground of that decision was that the holder of the bill might bring actions against the other parties liable upon it. But here the bill was indorsed specially to the Plaintiff, and no person, except the Plaintiff, can make any claim upon it. Therefore, there is not, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mƒ€™DONNELL v MURRAY
...341. Glynn v. The Bank of England 2 Ves. 38. Tercese v. Geray Finchƒ€™s Rep. 301. Ex parte Greenway 6 Ves. 811. Macartney v. GrahamENR 2 Sim. 285. Davies v. DoddENR 4 Price, 176. Cockell v. BridgemanENR 4 Beav. 499. Wright v. Lord MaidstoneENR 1 Kay & J. 701. Poole v. SmithENR Holt, 14......
-
Pearce v Creswick
...jurisdiction of equity to give relief in cases of lost instruments rest upon a principle not applicable to this case : Macartney v. Graham (2 Sim. 285); Hansard v. Robinson (7 B. & C. 90); Threlfall v. Lunt (7 Sim. 627). 5. The Plaintiff insists alternatively that he is entitled to have the......
-
Wright v Lord Maidstone
...in equity,, because of the necessity of indemnifying the acceptor against the chance of the instrument being found. In Macartney v. Graham (2 Sim. 285) the last-mentioned-case was treated as having overruled Mossop v. Eadon. And see Ramuz v. Crowe (I Exch. 167). But those were cases of a lo......
-
Earle v Holt
...to the suit, and certainly not against persons not parties to the suit: Pen/old v. Nunn~(5 Sim. 405). They cited also Macartney v. Graham (2 Sim. 285). Mr. Romilly and Mr. Wright, for the bill. the vice-chancellor [Sir James Wigram]. The demurrer to this bill is for want of parties only; an......