Pearson against Garrett
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 87 E.R. 371
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS, EXCHEQUER.
[242] cask 91. pearson against garrett. Trinity Term, 5 Will. & Mary, .Roll 177. An action brought by the payee of a note of hand, by which the drawer promises to pay to him sixty guineas within two months after the drawer shall have married such a person, cannot be sustained unless a legal consideration be averred; for such a note is not within the custom of merchants.-S. C. Skin. 398. John Pearson complains of John Garrett, being in the custody of the marshall, &c. for that, to wit, whereas the City of London is an antient city ; and also whereas in () This case was argued again in Trinity term 6 Will. & Mary ; and the Court being of opinion, that the fellows who were ordered to be amoved ought to have been parties, refused, for this cause only, to grant a peremptory mandamus. As to the other objection, the Judges seemed to think, that the writ was proper enough ; for it is the duty of the Court of King's Bench to see that the law be executed, and a mandamus is the proper writ, S. C. Skin. 549; but as it did not appear but that the fellows might have taken the oaths required at the Quarter Sessions, they refused, on these points also, to grant a peremptory mandamus, S. C. Comb. 282. (b) See The Mayor of Thetford's case, 1 Salk. 192, in point. 372 MICHAELMAS TERM, 5 WILLIAM AND MARY. IN B. R. 4MOD.244. the same city, to wit, at the parish of Saint Mary le Bow, in the ward of Cheap, there is aud hath been, from time immemorial, an ancient and laudable custom, approved and used in the same, between merchants and other persons inhabiting in the same city, namely, that if any person inhabiting in the said city shall make any bill or note in writing subscribed under his hand, and by the same bill or note he should promise to pay any person any aura of money at any time or any times in the same bill or note mentioned, such person who made the same bill or note, by the same promise and consideration aforesaid, among merchants and other persons aforesaid, so as aforesaid used and approved, is bound to pay the same sum of money in the same bill or note mentioned to the same persons to whom promise of payment thereof by the same bill or note was made to pay the same at the time or times in and by the same bill and note for payment thereof is denoted, according to his promise aforesaid. And whereas, on the twenty-first day of October...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gay and Another v Lander
...over, within the custom of merchants, to any other person (c); and that such person to whom the sum of (c) Vide Pearson v. Garrett, 4 Mod. 242 ; Clerke v. Martin, 2 Ld. Eaym. 757, 1 Salk. 129; Burton v. Souter, 2 Ld. Eaym. 774; Williams v. Cutting, 2 Ld. Eaym. 1284 BEOWN V._ DE WINTON 6C.-B......
-
The King against Sir Robert Atkyns, Sir John Knight, and Others
...or maker of the note, except the action be brought by the payee, or the note be not within the custom of merchants, Pearson v. Ganell, 4 Mod. 242. Jeffries v. Austin, 1 Stra. 674. Bull. N. P. 274. See also the cases of Fere v. Lewis, 3 Term Rep. 183. Collins v. Emmet, 1 H. BI. Rep. 313. Min......
-
Morgan and Another v Jones
...the money counts. It Was decided, before the statute, that a note payable on a contingency was not a good note (Pearson v. Garrett, 4 Mod. 242). Long before the statute, the practice had prevailed amongst traders of sending these instruments into the world, and Courts of justice entertained......
-
Barnesly against Baldwyn
...v. Franldyn (b), I do not find there was any judg- (a) 2 Ld. Bay. 1362. Fort. 281. (a) 8 Mod. 265. 2 Ld. Ray. 1361. 1 Stra. 591. (b) 4 Mod. 242. Skiu. 398. Comb. 227. (c) 8 Mod. 362. Gilb. 93. Ray. But. 92. (d) 12 Tiner Abr. 208, pi. 18. (e) 1 Stra. 24. (/) Cunningham on Bills of Exchange, ......