Nichols and Another against Norris
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 April 1831 |
| Date | 21 April 1831 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 15
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
nichols and another against norris. Thursday, April 21st, 1831. A. gave a promissory note, payable to B. (for which A. had received no consideration), as a security for goods to be sold to B. on credit; and B. indorsed the note over to the creditors. B. afterwards executed a deed of composition with the creditors, by which he undertook to pay his debt to them by instalments, and it was stipulated that they should not be prevented by that arrangement from suing on any securities which they held, and that on any default in paying the instalments the deed should be void : Held, that the delay granted to B. by this agreement, did not discharge A. Assumpsit on a promissory note for 501., made by the defendant, June 6th, 1826, payable to Robert Johnston the Younger, and indorsed by him to the plaintiffs. Plea, the general issue. At the trial before Lord Tenterden C.J., at the sittings in London after Hilary term 1830, it appeared that Johnston having requested the plaintiffs to 16 WILLCOCK V. WINDSOR 3 B. & AD. 12. supply him with coals, they refused to do so unless he would give them security for 501. He accordingly induced the defendant, who was his father-in-law, to draw the note in question, and indorsed and delivered it to the plaintiffs, having told them that his father-in-law would be security: and about a week afterwards, he executed a bill of sale to the defendant, to secure him against his liability in respect of the note. The bill of sale never produced any thing to the defendant. In 1829 Johnston, being indebted to the plaintiffs to the amount of more than 10001., executed a deed of composition with them, by which they agreed to accept a certain sum in discharge of their whole demand. A small part was paid in cash, and bills and notes given for the rest. It was stipulated in the deed that, as the plaintiffs held several securities for their demands on Johnston, they should not be debarred from suing on them by the arrangement then making; and, further, that if the bills and notes were not paid as they successively became due, the deed should be of no effect, and the original debt remain in force. The deed contained a general release, subject to these conditions. Some of the notes were paid, but one was not met when due, and Johnston shortly afterwards became bankrupt. At the trial it was contended that the plaintiffs, by entering into the deed of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Coles Myer Finance Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
-
John Owen and J M. Gutch, - Appellants; Sarah Homan, - Respondent
...Maltby v. Carstairs (7 B. & C. 735), Oakeley v. Pasheller (10 BH. N. S. 548), Harrison v. GourtaiM (3 B. & Ad. 36), Nichols v. Norris (3 B. & Ad. 41), Kearsley \. Cole (16 M. & W. 128), Ex parte Gi/ord (6 Ves. 805), Ex parte Glendinning (Buck, 517), and Boultbee v. Stubbs (18 Vea. 20), the ......
-
Handcock v Handcock
...Buck. 517. AnonymousENR 1 C. P. Coop. 609, Appx. Philpott v. BriantUNKENR 1 Moo. & P. 754; S. C. 4 Bing. 717. Nicholls v. NorrisENR 3 B. & Ad. 41. Exparte Gifford 6 Ves. 805. Kearsley v. ColeENR 16 M. & W. 128. Hatchell v. Cremorne Ll. & G. temp. Plunk. 236. Hatchell v. Cremorne Ll. & G. te......
-
Richard Pooley against William Thang Harradine
...law, however, the rule in question has apparently (a) 2 Camp. 185. As to this case, see Fentum v. Pocock, 5 Taun. 192; Nichols v. Worris, 3 B. & Ad. 41. 1312 THE QUEEN V. WESTBURY ON TRYM 7 EL & BL. 444. been treated as arising oat of the original contract with the creditor: and, if this wa......