Peto v Reynolds
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 January 1854 |
| Date | 24 January 1854 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 156 E.R. 175
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 2 C. L. R. 491; 23 L. J. Ex. 98; 18 Jur 472. See further, 11 Ex. 418.
[410] peto x. reynolds Jan. 24, 1854-The plaintiff's agent at Cameroons in Africa drew an instrument in the form of a bill of exchange, but addressed to no one; across which the defendant's agent wrote an acceptance in the defendant's name, and delivered the bill to the plaintiffs agent, for value received. In an action on the bill, the plaintiff attempted to prove that the bill was presented to the defendant, when he promised to pay it. It being doubtful however fiom the evidence, whether the defendant had made an absolute or merely a conditional promise to pay the bill, the Court, in granting a new trial, though disposed to think that the instrument was not a bill of exchange, declined to give an express opinion on that point, but Held, by Parke, B., Alderson, B., and Martin, B., that, if the instrument was not a bill of exchange, it was clearly a promissory note, if there was evidence of an absolute promise to pay it. [S. C. 2 G L. R. 491; 23 L. J. Ex. 98; 18 Jur 472. See further, 11 Ex. 418.] The first count of the declaration stated, that one A. Righton, on the 3rd of September, 1852, in parts beyond the seas, at Cameroons, Africa, made his bill of exchange in writing, now overdue, in three parts, and directed the same to the defen dant; and by that his third of exchange requested the defendant, at sight of that his third ef exchange (the first and second of the same tenor and date being unpaid), to pay to the plaintiff or order the sum of 2001.; and the said A. Righton delivered the sail third part to the plaintiff, and the defendant had sight of and accepted the said third part, but did not pay the said bill or any part thereof. The second count stated, that the defendant, by his promissory note, now overdue, promised to pay to the plaintiff or order the sum of 200L, but did not pay the same or any pait thereof. Pleas, to the first count, that the defendant did not accept the bill; to the second count, that the defendant did not make the note. Issues thereon. At the trial, before Talfourd, J., at the last Bristol Assizes, it appeared that the defendant was a merchant at Bristol and owner of a vessel called the " Mary," which, in April 1852, had sailed from that port to the coast of Africa under the command of one RSghton. The plaintiff was treasurer of a foreign Missionary Society, and the registered owner of a vessel called the "Dove," which had been sent by that society to the coast of Africa. Whilst Righton was at Cameroons in Africa, he there saw the " Dove," and agreed with one Saker, an agent of the Missionary Society, to purchase that vessel for 3001., for the [411] purpose of loading the "Mary." He paid 1001., 176 PETO V. REYNOLDS 9 EX. 412- and, in respect of the residue, Saker drew the following bill in sets, across which Righton wrote the defendant's acceptance : - " Exchange for 200...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lim & Lyle Associates Pte Ltd v Schlotzer
...his 'acceptance' on it, that person may be liable on the instrument as the maker of a promissory note. The cases of Peto v Reynolds (1854) 9 Exch 410, Mason v Lack (1929) 45 TLR 363, Haseldine v Winstanley [1936] 2 KB 101 were cited as supporting authorities. 16 In Peto v Reynolds, the plai......
-
Malcomson v Malcomson
...DIVISION. MALCOMSON and MALCOMSON. Penny v. InnesENR 1 C. M. & R. 439. Matthews v. Bloxsome 33 L. Jour. Q. B. 209. Peto v. ReynoldsENR 9 Ex. 410. Jackson v. HudsonENR 2 Camp. 447. Polhill v. WalkerENR 1 B. & A. 114. Ex parte Bevan 10 Ves. 106. In re Oriental Commercial Bank, Ex parte Europe......
-
Reynolds v Peto
...with him), for the defendant. First, the instrument in question is not a bill of exchange. (On this point he cited Pcto v. Heynohh (9 Exch. 410); fieg. v. Hawkes (2 Moo. C. C. 60), 1 Chit. Jun. on Bills, p. 1 , Pothier, Contrat de Change, No. 39, cited in Millei v. Thomson (3 M. & I! 576), ......
-
Fielder v Marshall
...there can be nona aliunde.] If not available as a bill of exchange, the document may well enure as a promissory note : Peto v. Eeynolds, 9 Exch. 410. There, there was no direction to any one ; and it was held by Parke, B., Alderson, B., and Martin, B., that, if not a lill of exchange, it wa......