Mead aginst Young
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 November 1790 |
| Date | 18 November 1790 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 100 E.R. 876
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Referred to, Vagliano v. Bank of England, 1889-1891, 23 Q. B. D. 257; [1891], A. c. 168.
[28] mead against young. Thursday, Nov. 18th, 1790. In an action by the indorsee against the acceptor of a bill of exchange, drawn payable to "A. or order," it is competent to the defendant to give evidence that the person who indorsed to the plaintiff was not the real payee, though he be of the same name, and though there be no addition to the name of the payee on the bill. If a bill of exchange, payable to A. or order, get into the hands of another person of the same name as the payee, and such person, knowing that he was nob the real person in whose favour it was drawn, indorse it, he is guilty of a forgery. [Referred to, Vagliano v. Sank of England, 1889-1891, 23 Q. B. D. 257 ; [1891], A. C. 168.] This was an action brought by the indorsee of a bill of exchange for 901. against the acceptor. The bill was drawn at Dunkirk by Christian, on the defendant in London, payable " to Henry Davis, or order ; " and, having been put into the foreign mail, inclosed in a letter from Christian, it got into the hands of another Henry Davis than the one in whose favour it was drawn. The defendant accepted the bill; and when Davis desired the plaintiff to discount it, the latter made application to the defendant to know whether or not it was his acceptance 1 and, on receiving an answer in the affirmative, coupled with an assurance that it was a good bill, he discounted it, not knowing the H. Davis from whom he took it. There was no ground to impute any fraud to the plaintiff. On the trial before Lord Kenyon, after the plaintiff had proved tbe defendant's hand-writing, and the indorsement by Davis, the defendant offered evidence to shew that the H. Davis, who indorsed to the plaintiff, was not the real H. Davis in whose favour the bill was drawn : but Lord Kenyon being of opinion that such evidence was inadmissible, the plaintiff recovered a verdict. A rule having been obtained to shew cause why a new trial should not be granted on this misdirection, Erskine and Shepherd now shewed cause. If there had been any particular description of the payee on the bill, the plaintiff must have taken care that the person from whom he received it answered the whole of the description : but there was no description of, or addition to, the H. Davis; there was nothing on the bill to lead either the acceptor or any third person to suspect that the H. Davis, who was in possession of the bill, was not the real payee. And, so far from the plaintiff's having incurred any charge of neglect, he seems to have taken more than ordinary caution (a) Ante, 2 vol. 90. (b) Vide R. v. F. Page, post, 543, and E. v. The Cmnmissioners of Sailer's Lead Sluice, post, 730, post, 8, 340. *T. X. 29. MEAD V. YOUNG 877 in making inquiries of the acceptor before he discounted the bill. There is no pretence to impute either fraud or neglect to the plaintiff; he stands in the situation of an innocent purchaser for a valuable consideration. This case, therefore, falls within the common rule, that, where one of two innocent persons must suffer by the fraud of another, the loas must be borne by him who enabled the party to commit the fraud ; and in this case that person is Christian, who ought to have described the payee more particularly. [29] Piggott, Mingay, Law, and Baldwin, in support of the rule.-A party, purchasing a bill of exchange, is, like the purchaser of any other species of property, bound to inquire into the title of him from whom he buys. No person can derive title to this bill but he who claims under the real H. Davis ; and it ia indifferent whether the person indorsing the bill be or be not of the same name with the real payee; in neither case can any property be transferred but by him who has the title. If he bear the same name, prima facie indeed he may be presumed to be the same person, till the contrary be shewn : but here the queation was, whether evidence should not have been received to prove the contrary] If such evidence be not admissible, it will follow that payment to a person of the same name with a legatee would discharge the executor, or a payment by a debtor to any person who had the same name as his creditor : but that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hipwell and Another v Knight
...a stipulation that time should be of the essence of the contract.-Where parties contract that the purchase of land (a) See Mead v. Young, 4 T. R. 28. 164 HIP WELL I1. KNIGHT 1 Y. & C. EX 2. shall be completed within so many months, calendar and not lunar months are intended. [S. C. 4 L. J. ......
-
Forster and Others v Clements
...Ellenborough said they had shewn no right * [Attormes, Crowder & Co and Follett J * Vide Cheap v Hailey. cited 3 T K.127 , Read v Younr/, 4 T R 28 English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1066 IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS Forster and others and Clements Saturday, Feb. 25, 1809.......
-
Blackburn v Blackburn
...the parties from now proceeding in either way ? Mr Deniuan answered the first question as follows - " On the principle of Mead v Young, 4 T. R 28, I think the acceptance written on the bill, under the circumstances stated, was a forgery " [154] The second and third questions he answered in ......
-
Samuel Blackburn v John Blackburn
...accepting the bill, and negotiating the same under the false representation before mentioned 1 "Answer.-On the principle of Mead v. Young, 4 T. R. 28, I think the acceptance written on the bill, under the circumstances stated, was a forgery.' " To this measure have I been driven in my own d......