Masers v Ibberson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 June 1849 |
| Date | 19 June 1849 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 137 E.R. 446
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C 18 L. J. C. P. 348.
[100] masters v. ibberson. June 19, 1849. [S. C. 18 L. J. C. P. 348.] To a count on a promissory note made by the defendant, payable to the order of A., and indorsed by A. to B., and by B. to. the plaintiff, the defendant pleaded that the note was obtained from him by D. and others in collusion with him, by fraud; that there was no consideration for the indorsement by A. to B.; and that the plaintiff had notice of the fraud:-Held, bad, there being nothing to impeach A.'s title to the note.-A further plea stated that the consideration for the note was the forbearance to prosecute the defendant's son upon a charge of felony,-not averring that a felony had been committed, or affecting A., the payee, with notice of the alleged illegality of the consideration :-Held, bad. Assumpsit. The first count stated that the defendant, on the 19th of August, 1848, made his promissory note in writing, and thereby promised to pay to the order of Mary Jones, 851., five months after the date thereof,-which period had elapsed, and the said note had become due and payable before the commencement of this suit, -and then delivered the said note to the said Mary Jones, who then indorsed the same to a person on the said note designated as W. L. Vincent, who then, by that designation, indorsed the same to the plaintiff; and the defendant then promised the plaintiff to pay him the amount of the said note, according to the tenor and effect thereof, and of the said indorsements. Fifth plea,-that the said promissory note in the said first count mentioned, was obtained from the defendant by one George Bromfield, and others in collusion with him, by fraud and covin practised upon him the defendant by the said G-eorge Bromfield and the said others in collusion with him; and that there never was any value or consideration for the said indorsement of the said note by the said Mary Jones to the said person designated as W. L. Vincent, or for the said indorsement by him to the plaintiff, or for the said W. L. Vincent, or the plaintiff, being the holder of the said note,-verification. Special demurrer, assigning for causes,-that the [101] plea contained no defence to the first count, inasmuch as it did not properly aver that Mary Jones, the payee of the note, was any party to the alleged fraud, or had any notice of it, or was not a bonl fide holder for value;-that, if the general allegation of there never having been any consideration for the plaintiff's being the holder of the note, were taken to include absence of consideration to her, then the plea was bad for generality, in not shewing how she held it, whether as trustee for Bromfield or any other parties to the alleged fraud, or otherwise, as, by way of loan to her, or for her accommodation; and, in such case, the plea was also bad for duplicity, as setting up two distinct defences, the one of fraud and want of consideration as respected some only of the parties to the note, and the other the defence of total want of consideration as respected all the parties to the note, including the payee and first indorser. Sixth plea,-that the said promissory note in the first count mentioned, was (a) Vide post, p. 115. 8 C. B. 102. MASTEES V. IBBERSON 447 obtained from the defendant by the said George Bromfield, and others in collusion with him, by fraud and covin practised upon him, the defendant, by Bromfield, and the said others in collusion with him; and that the said W. L. Vincent and the plaintiff, respectively, before and at the several times when the said note was first indorsed to them respectively, and when each of them first received the same, had notice of the premises in this plea aforesaid,-verification. Special demurrer, assigning-for causes,-that the plea did not aver that Mary Jones, the payee of the note in the first count mentioned, did not give full value for the note, or had any notice of the fraud at the time she took it, nor did it shew in what character she held the note, whether as trustee for Bromfield or any of the said other parties, or otherwise. [102] Seventh plea,-that the said promissory note in the said first count mentioned was obtained from the defendant by the said George Bromfield, and others in collusion with him, by fraud and covin practised upon the defendant by Bromfield and the said others in collusion with him; and that the said note was payable and overdue, according to the tenor and effect thereof, before and at the time when the same was first indorsed by Mary Jones to W. L. Vincent, and before and at the time when the same was first indorsed "by Vincent to the plaintiff, and before and at the time when Vincent and the plaintiff, respectively, first took and received the same,-verification. Special demurrer, assigning for cause,-that it was not shewn in the plea, that Mary Jones, the payee of the note in the first count mentioned, was not a bona fide holder for value of the said note, or that she had any notice of fraud alleged, if any existed, or could not have sued upon the note, or had not capacity to transfer a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loughnan v Barry and Byrne
...v. HusbandENR 4 B. & Ad. 611. White v. GardenENR 10 C. B. 919. Kingsford v. MerryENRENR 1 H. & N. 503; 11 Ex. 577. Masters v. IbbersonENR 8 C. B. 100. Childers v. WoolerENR 2 E. & E. 267. Street v. BlayENR 2 B. & Ad. 456. Kingsford v. MerryENRENR 11 Ex. 577; 1 H. & N. 503. Sale of Goods — P......
-
Eilzabeth Dakin, Administration of William Dakin, Deccased, v Brown and Munt
...in the fourth plea were admissible under not guilty, the plea was good, inasmuch as it gave sufficient colour." 446 MASTERS V. IBBERSON 8C.B.100. plaintiff, or those for whose acts he was responsible, was contributory with the defendant to the damage. Here, the defendants seek to excuse the......