North and Another against Wakefield
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 April 1849 |
| Date | 16 April 1849 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 116 E.R. 1368
QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 18 L. J. Q. B. 214; 13 Jur. 731. Referred to, Ex parte Halifax Joint Stock Banking Company, 1876, 35 L. T. 556; Ex parte Good, 1877, 5 Ch. D. 55.
north and another against wakefield. Mouday, April 16th, 1849. Where a .y-ig'. deed is not set out on oyer, but is pleaded according to its alleged legal effect, non eat factum puts in issue the alleged effect of the deed as well as its execution. To a declaration on a promissory note, defendant pleaded that the note was the joint and several note of himself and G.; that plaintiff, by deed poll without defendant's consent, released G. from the note and all actions, &c.; and thereby also released defendant from the same. Replication, non est factum. Held, that, as the plea did not set out the deed on oyer, the replication put in isaue the executiou of such a deed as released the defendant. And that a deed of release, executed by plaintiff and others, creditors of G., containing an express clause that the release to G. should not operate to discharge any one jointly liable with G. on securities to the said creditors, did not release the defendant; and that, therefore, plaintiff was entitled to tba verdict on this issue, [S. C. 18 L. J. Q. B. 214 ; 13 Jur. 731. Referred to, Ex parte Halifax Joint Stock Banking Company, 1876, 35 L. T. 556; Ex parte Good, 1877, 5 Oh. D. 55.] Debt ou a promissory note for 10001., dated 20th June 1845, made by the defendant, payable to the plaintiffs on demand. Pleas. 1. That defendant did not make the note. Issue thereon. 2. That the note was the joint and several note of defendant and one William Goddard ; and that, after the making of the note, to wit on 27th October 1827, plaintiffs, by a certain deed poll of that date, without the consent of defendant, released the said William Goddard from the said promissory note, and from all actions, suits, claims and demands whatsoever upon and in respect thereof; and thereby then also released defendant from the same. Verification. 3. That the note was the joint and several note of the defendant Goddard ; and that defendant made the same for the accommodation, and as the surety, of Goddard, and not otherwise; and that there never was any other value or consideration for the making of the note by [537] defendant than as thereinbefore, mentioned ; and that, after the making of the note, to wit on, &c., Goddard, then being in bad and embar rassed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson and Another v Davies and Another
...judgment of Lord Justice Neill, where, after referring to Solly v Forbes (1820) 2 Brod & B 38, Watters v Smith (1831) 2 B & Ad 889 and North v Wakefield (1849) 13 QB 536, which are all cases of joint, but not joint and several, liability, he said this (transcript, page 22): Accordingly, tho......
-
Deanplan Ltd v Mahmoud and Another
...LtdUNK ([1984] 270 EG 643);Watters v SmithENR ((1831) 2 B & Ad 889); Nicholson v RevillENR ((1836) 4 Ad & E 675); North v WakefieldENR ((1849) 13 QB 536); Ex parte Good, In re ArmitageELR((1877) 5 ChD 46); and In re E W A (a Debtor)ELR ([1901] 2 KB 642), his Lordship drew the following conc......
-
Nigel Watts The Right Honourable Toby Lowe Baron Aldington and Count Nikolai Tolstoy-miloslavaski (1) Roy Welsby, The Trustee in Bankruptcy of Count Nikolai Tolstoy-miloslavaski (2) The Right Honourable Toby Lowe Baron Aldington
...the plaintiff's rights against the other, as in Solly v. Forbes." 98 The court was also referred to the decision in North v. Wakefield (1849) 13 QB 536; 116 ER 1368. It was there held that where a deed of release contained an express clause that it should not operate to discharge anyone joi......
-
Park Regis Hospitality Management Sdn Bhd v British Malayan Trustees Ltd
...457 (refd) Nigel Watts Count Nikolai Tolstoy-Miloslavaski v The Right Honourable Toby Lowe [1989] L & TR 578 (refd) North v Wakefield (1849) 13 QB 536; 116 ER 1368 (refd) Tan Eng Khiam v Ultra Realty Pte Ltd [1991] 1 SLR (R) 844; [1991] SLR 798 (refd) Thompson v Australian Capital Televisio......
-
Accessory liability and contribution, release and apportionment.
...consideration. (193) This reason has influenced the development of the release rule in relation to joint debtors: see North v Wakefield (1849) 13 QB 536, 541; 116 ER 1368, 1370 (Patteson (194) Friend v Brooker (2009) 239 CLR 129, 148 (French C J, Gummow, Hayne and Bell JJ). (195) In Resourc......