Manwaring v Harrison
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 93 E.R. 666
COURTS OF CHANCERY, KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
manwaring vers. harrison. Ibid. Within what time a goldsmith's note must be demanded. Upon the 17th of September (being Saturday) about two o'clock in the afternoon, Harrison gave to Manwaring in payment a note for 1001. by Mitford and Mertins goldsmiths, dated 5th of September, payable to Harrison or order. The same afternoon Manwaring pays away the note to J. S. Mitford and Mertins paid all Saturday and Monday, and on Tuesday morning as soon as the shop was open, and before any money paid, J. S. came and demanded the money, but Mitford and Mertins stopt payment; Manwaring paid back the money to J. S. and demanded it again of Harrison : who refusing to pay it, an action was brought. And on non assumpsit the Chief Justice told the jury, that giving the note is not immediately payment, unless the receiver does something to make it so by neglecting to receive it in a reasonable time, by which he gives credit to the maker of the note. He left it to them whether there had been any neglect, and observed that the note was payable to Harrison, who had kept it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coppinger v Bradley
...8 Ad. & El. 351. Marshalsea case 10 Co. 369. Cameron v. LightfootUNK 2 Wm. Bl. 1190 Barker v. Braham 3 wils. 368. Philips v. BironENR 1 Str. 508. Brig v. AdamsENRENR Comb. 235; S.C. Carth. 274. Perkin v. Procter 2 Wils. 382. Parsons v. Lloyd 3 Wils. 341. Britton v. ColeENR 12 Mod. 175. Codr......