Nelson and Wife v Serle
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 1643
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 1 H. & H. 456; 8 L. J. Ex. 305; 3 Jur. 290.
4 M. ft W. 795. NELSON V. SERLE 1643 [795] in the exchequer chamber. nelson and wife v. serle. Exch. Chamber. 1839.-To a declaration in debt on a promissory note for 241. dated 3rd January, 1837, made by the defendant, payable twelve months after date to the plaintiff, the defendant pleaded that one J. W., before and at his death, was indebted to the plaintiff in 241. for goods sold, which sum was due to the plaintiff at the time of the making of the promissory note in the declaration mentioned; that the plaintiff, after the death of J. W., applied to the defendant for payment; whereupon, in compliance with his request, the defendant, after the death of J. W., for and in respect of the debt so remaining due to the plaintiff as aforesaid, and for no other consideration whatever, made and delivered the note to the plaintiff, and that J. W. died intestate, and that at the time of the making and delivery of the note, no administration had been granted of his effects, nor was there any executor or executors of his estate, nor any person liable for the debt so remaining due to the plaintiff as aforesaid ; and the defendant averred that there never was any consideration for the said note except as aforesaid. Held, that the plea was a good answer to the declaration, [S. C. 1 H. & H. 456 ; 8 L. J. Ex. 305; 3 Jur. 290.] This was a writ of error from the judgment of the Court of Exchequer in the case of Serle v. Waterwarth (ante, p. 9), the defendant Mrs. Waterworth having since married Nelson, the now plaintiff in error. It was an action of debt on a promissory note for 241. Is. 4d., value received, dated the 3rd January, 1837, made by the defendant, (the now plaintiff in error,) payable twelve months after date to the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded, that one Joseph Waterworth, before and at the time of his death, to wit, on the 2nd January, 1837, was indebted to the plaintiff in a certain aum of money, to wit, the sum of 241. Is. 4d., for the price and value of goods by the plaintiff before then sold and delivered to the said J. Waterworth, which sum was due and owing to the plaintiff at the time of the making of the promissory note in the first count mentioned; and that the plaintiff, after the death of the said J. Waterworth, and before the making of the said note, to wit, on the 2nd January, 1837, applied to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ashpitel, Executor of James Peto v Bryan
...Camp. 133, note), there was no estoppel.] Further, there was no value or consideration for the defendant's acceptance ; Nelson v. Serle (4 M. & W. 795). James Peto never had actual possession of the goods of John Peto, and bad no right to them. The defendant would have no defence to an acti......
-
Balfour and Another v The Official Manager of the Sea Fire Life Assurance Comapany
...Forbearance at his request during the currency of the bill, is the only consideration for the bill from a third party: Nelson v. Serle, 4 M. & W. 795. There, in a declaration against the defendant as maker of a promissory note, he pleaded that one J. W., before and at the time of his death,......
-
La Touche and Others v Amelia La Touche
...B. A bill or note does not differ from any other contract as regards consideration.] flulout v uiiistow was cited in Nelqm v. Sole (4 M. & W. 795), where the defendant was allowed to shew that there was no consideration for the note ; but this distinction is pointed out, that in the former ......
-
Mather v Lord Maidstone
...J,- Subject to all its equities. Willes, J., referred to Serk v. Waterworlh, 4 M. & W. 9, and Nelson v. Serle (the same case in error), 4 M. & W. 795.] It does not appear that the representation (tacitly) made by the defendant was wilful, so as to induce the plaintiff to act: upon it to his......