Manley against Boycot
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 April 1853 |
| Date | 29 April 1853 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 118 E.R. 686
COURTS OF QUEENS BENCH, AND THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER.CHAMBER
S. C. 22 L. J. Q. B. 265; 17 Jur. 1118. Considered and adopted, Strong v. Foster, 1855, 17 C. B. 218. See Greenough v. M'Clelland, 1860, 2 El & El. 424.
[46] manley against boycot. Friday, April 29th, 1353. To an action, by the payee of a joint and several promissory note, against one of the makers, defendant pleaded that he made the note as surety for the other maker G., and that there had never been any other value or consideration for defendant's making the note ; all which had always been well known to plaintiff: that, after the note was due, and before the commencement of the action, and after payment had been demanded of G., G. was indebted to plaintiff in 11001., which included the amount of the note; and plaintiff agreed with G., without defendant's leave, to give time to G. for that debt.-Plaintiff traversed the giving time; and the issue was found for defendant.-Held : That, in the absence of any allegation, in the plea, that plaintiff, when he took the note from defendant, agreed to receive it from defendant in the character of surety only, the plea was bad, and plaintiff was entitled to judgment non obstante veredicto. And, per Curiam, quaare whether or not such an allegation would have made the plea good.-Leave to enter a suggestion, under atat. 15 & 16 Viet. c. 76, s. 143, will not be granted unless the applicant shews by affidavit sufficient probable grounds for believing that the final decision on the suggestion will be in his favour.-So held, where the application was to supply the allegation as to which the Court doubted, as above. [S. C. 22 L. J. Q. B. 265; 17 Jur. 1118. Considered and adopted, Strong v. Foster, 1855, 17 C. B. 218. See Greenough v. M'Clelland, 1860, 2 El. & El. 424.] Action by plaintiff as public officer of certain persons united in copartnership under the name, &c. of The Stourbridge and Kidderminster Banking Company. The declaration stated that defendant and one George Friend, to wit on &c., " made their joint and several promissory note in writing, and delivered the same to the said copartnership, and thereby then jointly and severally promised to pay to the said copartnership, or their order, on demand, the sum of 3001., for value received, with lawful interest for the same, from the day of the date of the said note; and the defendant, in consideration of the premises, then promised to pay the amount of the said note to the said copartnership according to the tenor and effect thereof; yet the defendant hath disregarded his said promise, and hath not, nor hath the said G. F. or any other person or persons, on their or either of their behalf, paid " &c. Pleas (among others): 3. That the promissory note in the declaration mentioned was the joint and several note of the said G. F. and defendant; and that defend-[47]-ant "so made the said note as the surety, and at the request, and for the accommodation, of the said G. F.; and that there never was any other value or consideration ever existing for his, the defendant's, making or paying the said note : all which has always been well known to the said banking copartnership;" that, after the note had become due and payable, and payment thereof had been demanded of G. F., and whilst the said copartnership were the holders thereof, and long before the commencement of this suit, to wit on &c., the said G. F. was indebted to the said copartnership in a large aum of money greater than, and including, the amount of the said promissory note, and all interest then due thereon, to wit 11001.; "and thereupon it was then agreed, by and between the said G. F. and the said copartnership, without the consent, leave or licence of the defendant, so being such surety as aforesaid, that the said copartnership should forbear and give time to the said G. F. for the payment of the said debt and sum of money so including all money secured by the said promissory note as aforesaid, until certain to wit the three bills of exchange hereinafter described, and payable at the expiration of four, six and twelve months, respectively, ahould have become due and payable; according to the tenor and effect thereof respectively. And the defendant further saith that thereupon, and in pursuance of the said agreement, three bills of exchange for, to wit, 3001., 3001. and 5001., respectively and payable to order, four, six and twelve months, respectively, from the dates thereof, were then, to wib on the day and year last aforesaid, accepted jointly by the said G. F. and one William Friend, and then delivered tq the said copartnership, and by the said 2BL.&BL.48. MANLEY V. BOYCOT 687 copartnership then received and taken in pursuance of [48] the said agreement, and for and on account of the said debt and sum of money, including the said promissory note in the declaration mentioned, so due from the said G. F. to the said copartnership as aforesaid; and the defendant further saith that he never in any manner assented to, or ratified, or confirmed, the said agreement." Verification. 4. A plea similar to the 3d, but stating G. F.'s debt to the copartnership to be 8001., and the forbearance agreed upon to have been until the maturity of two bills of exchange, both dated 16th February 1849, for the several sums of 3001. and 5001., payable respectively at nine and twelve months after date, drawn by G. F. upon and accepted by W. F. 5, A similar plea, but stating the debt of G. F. to the copartnership to be 11001., and the forbearance agreed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
South Peninsula Municipality v Evans and Others
...364-6 and the authorities there cited; see also Harms Civil Procedure in the Supreme Court Practice (1994, with looseleaf updates) at Bl-45-Bl-46). B Despite the 'general rule' referred to above, it would appear that there are circumstances in which the applicant in motion proceedings is en......
-
Davies v Stainbank
...having been entered into. They referred to Powell v. Dillon (2 B. & B. 416), Abbott v. Henclricks (1 Man. & Gr. 791), Manley v. Boycot (2 El. & Bl. 46), Thompson v. Clubley (1 M. & W. 212), Solly v. Hinde (2Cr. & Mee. 516 ; 4 Tyrwh. 305), Adams v. Wordley (1 M. & W. 374), Ashbee v. Pidduek ......
-
Sefuthi v Minister van Justisie en 'n Ander
...(a) die Prokureur-generaal geweier het om te vervolg. Sien Waterhouse v Shields, 1924 CPD 155 te bl. 159; van Noorden v Weise, 2 S.C. 42 te bl. 46; Skeppy v Barry Bros., 23 S.C. 341; Greyling en Andere v Tunce, 1920 E.D.L. 8. Sien ook M. de Villiers, Roman and Roman-Dutch Law of E Injuries,......
-
Western Bank Bpk v Trust Bank van Afrika Bpk en Andere NNO
...Haarhof and Co., 1906 T.S. 497 op bl. 499-500; Johnson and Co. Ltd. v. Grand Hotel and Theatre Co. Ltd. (in Liquidation), 1907 O.R.C. 42 op bl. 46-48; Victoria Falls Power Co. v. Colonial Treasurer, 1909 T.S. 140 op bl. 145-146; Deputy Sheriff of Pretoria v. Heymann, 1909 T.S. 280 op bl. 28......