Moss v Hall and Wife
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 February 1850 |
| Date | 11 February 1850 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 20
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 19 L J Ex 205
Moss v hall and wife Feb 11, 1850-To an action on a bill of exchange by the indorsee against the executrix of the dr iwer, the defendant pleaded, that after the bill became due, and in the lifetime of the drawer, rt was agreed between the plaintiff, then the holdei of the bill, and the acceptor, without the authonty 01 consent of the diawei, " that, foi a good and sufficient consideiation 6 EX 47 MOSS V. HALL 21 in that behalf, that is to say, that in consideration tli.it the said J O (the acceptor) would, during a certain reasonable time, to wit, during the space of one month from the JLiy and year List aforesaid, use his best endeavours to procure a new and approved negotiable bill of exchange to be taken by the plaintiff if satisfactoiy to him, in lieu and substitution and foi and on account of the said bill, he the plaintiff would, for arid during the period aforesaid, abstain fioni and foibear enforcing payment horn J O of the said bill by proceedings lit law 01 otherwise" The plea then averred, that in pursuance of the said agreement, the said J () did dating the said period use his best etideavoms, &e , and concluded by alleging, that the plaintiff gave time to the acceptor without the consent of the drawer , and that the drawer had nevei tatihed the agreement Venhca-tion Replication, de injuria -Held, on geneial demurrei, that the plea disclosed a sufficient consideiation for the holder's pionnse to suspend the action against the acceptor, arid that the surety was thereby discharged -Held, also, on special demur rei, that the replication do injuna to this plea was bad [S C 19 L J Ex 205] Assumpsit. The first count of the declaration was by the plaintiff as indorsee of a lull of exchange foi 25} , drawn by one VV Vanrleistean (to whom the female defendant \vas executrix), upon and accepted by one .lames Osbome Plea (inter aba) to the hist count) that after the brll became due and payable according to the tenor and effaet thereof, and before the commencement or the suit, and in the lifetime of the said \V Vanderstean, to wit, on &c , it was agreed bv and between the plaintiff, then being the [47] bolder of the sard bill, and the said James Osbotne the acceptor, without the authority 01 consent of the said W Variderstean, that for a good and sufficient consideration in that behalf, that is to say, that the said James Osbome would, during a certain reasonable time, to wit, during the space of one month from the day and yeat last aforesaid, use his best endeavours to piocuie a new and appioved negotiable bill of exchange to he taken by the plaintiff, if satisfactory to him, in lieu and substitution and foi and on account of the said bill, he the plaintiff would, foi and during the period aforesaid in this plea mentioned, abstain fiom and forbear enforcing payment from the sard James Osborne of the said bill in the hrst count mentioned, by proceedings at law or otherwise, and that, in pursuance of the said agreement, the said .lames Osborne did, during the peuod last aforesaid, namely, in thq apace of one month fiom the day and year last aforesaid, use his best endeavours to procure a new and approved negotiable brll of exchange, to be taken by the plaintiff, if satisfactory to him, m lieu and substitution, and for itid on account of the said bill. The plea then averred, that the plaintiff, without the consent or authority of W Vanrlerstean, gave time to the said James Osbome, to wit, foi the period aforesaid, for the payment of the said bill, and that the said VV Vanderstean never ratified the said agreement Verification Replication, de rrijuria Special...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- TAC Construction & Trading v Bennes Engineering Bhd
-
Bailey and Others v Edwards
...; Ex parle Glendinning (Buck's Ca. in Bankruptcy, 517, 519-520), per Lord Eldon ; Smith v. Winter (4 M. & W. 454); Moss v. Hall (5 Exch. 46, 49), per Parke B.; Fmzer v. Jordan (8 E. & B. 303).] [765] Coleridge and Gray, contra.-The surety is not discharged by this composition deed, as it ex......
-
Belfast Banking Company v Stanley
...Bench. BELFAST BANKING COMPANY and STANLEY. Moss v. HallENR 5 Exch. 46. Frazer v. JordanENR 8 E. & B. 303. Tucker v. LaingENR 2 K. & J. 745. Madden v. M'MullenUNK 13 Ir. C. L. R. 305. Goring . EdmondsENR 6 Bing. 94. Wright v. Simpson 6 Ves. 714. Dawson v. Lawes 23 L. J. Ch. 434 Pooley v. Ha......
-
Crooked Post Shorthorns et al. v. Masterfeeds Inc., [2008] A.R. Uned. 650
...28 to March 22 except for the period March 4 to March 8, 2001. At trial, Kirk Seaborn described the many problems with 20K and 31K. On p. 5, Ex. 46, Kirk Seaborn has described the 2002 observations of the K heifers who ate the Ration in March of 2001 as: 1. CP20K "calfing difficulties." 20K......
-
Contract as Promise: The Role of Promising in the Law of Contract. An Historical Account
...(1838) 8 Ad & E 743, 1 P & D 2, 1 W, W & H 600; Haigh v Brooks (1839) 10 Ad & E 309; Hart v Miles (1850) 4 CBNS 371; Moss v Hall (1850) 5 Exch 46; Westlake v Adams (1858) 5 CBNS 248. The fact that consideration was not abolished entirely was a product not just of legal conservatism but also......