Moseley, Assignee of Robinson, a Bankrupt, against Hanford
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 May 1830 |
| Date | 07 May 1830 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 621
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 8 L. J. K. B. O. S. 261. Referred to, Abrey v. Crux, 1869, L. R. 5 C. P. 42.
moseley, Assignee of Robinson, a Bankrupt, against hanfoed. ' Friday, May 7th, 1830. Where a promissory note is, on the face of it, made payable on demand : oral evidence of an agreement entered into when it was made, that it should not be paid until a given event happened, is inadmissible. [S. C. 8 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 261. Referred to, Abrey v. Crux, 1869, L. R. 5 C. P. 42.] Declaration against the maker of a promissory note for 2331., payable to the bankrupt or his order on demand. Plea, general issue. At the trial before Alexander C.B., at the last assizes for the county of Derby, the handwriting of the defendant to the note set out in the declaration was proved. Evidence was given on the part of the defendant, that he and one Richardson, being in partnership as booksellers at Derby, agreed to purchase certain premises belonging [730] to the bankrupt, and it was stipulated that the bankrupt should deliver up possession by the 1st day of August 1825, or pay, for the time he should keep possession beyond that day, a rent agreed upon between the parties; that on the 1st of August 1825, Richardson and the defendant paid up the whole of the purchase-money except 2331.; and that the defendant, with the consent of the bankrupt, gave his sole note for the balance, it being expressly stipulated that it was to be paid on the bankrupt's delivering up possession of the premises, and accounting for the rent to the 1st of August. It was further proved, that part of the premises continued in possession of the bankrupt's sister down to and since the commencement of the action. A verdict having been found for the plaintiff, Denman, on a former day in this term, moved for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. But...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of Ecclesall Bierlow
...2 Park on Ins. 470 ; Rawson \. Walker, 1 Stark. N. P. C. 361; Foster v. Jolly, 1 C. M. & R. 703, S. C. 5 Tyrwh. 239; Mosdey v. Hanford, 10 B. & C. 729; Meres v. Ansett, 3 Wils. 275; Adams v. WordUy, 1 M. & W. 374, S. C. Tyrwh. & Gr. 620; Maget v. Atkinson, 2 M. & W. 440; Jones v. Littledale......
-
Spartali and Others v Benecke and Others
...v. Wordley (1 M. & W. 374); Foster v. Jolly (1 0. M. & E. 703); Free v. .Hawkins (8 Taunt. 92,1 J. B. Moore, 535); Moseley v. Ranford (10 B. & C. 729, 5 M. & E. 607); Hoare v. Graham (3 Campb. 57); Eawson v. Walker (1 Stark. -N. P. C. 361). That the rule is general, will also appear from de......
-
Brown and Another v Langley
...obtained a rule nisi accordingly. He cited Hoare v. Graham (3 Campb. 57), Rawson v. Walker (1 Stark. N. P. C. 361), Moseley v. Hanfwd (10 B. & C. 729, 5 Mann. & Kyi. 607), and Foster v. Jolly (d). [Tindal C. J., at the time the rule was granted, referred to Bowerbank v. Monteiro (4 Taunt. 8......
-
Richard Gillett against Thomas Henry Whitmarsh, Charlotte Selfe and Harriett Selfe
...raised by shewing the consideration for the note, which may be done by oral evidence. [Lord Denman C.J. referred to Moseley v. Hanford (10 B. & C. 729).] The attempt there was to vary the terms of the note by oral evidence: here the plea merely describes the consideration of the note and sh......