Phillipps against Bateman and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 November 1812 |
| Date | 24 November 1812 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 104 E.R. 1124
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
1124 PHILLIPPS V. BATEMAN 16 EAST, 356. [356] phillipps against bateman and others. In Error. Tuesday, Nov. 24tb, 1812. The defendant, on occasion of there being a great run upon a banking-house, went to the bank and told the holders of notes issued by the bank, who were waiting for payment, that he had come to a resolution to support the bank with 30,0001., at which the holders then present were satisfied, and said they would take no more money than was necessary, and would keep the rest of their notes till they got again into currency j and afterwards the defendant signed the following written paper, "I do hereby authorize G. B. to assure the inhabitants of Pembroke and its vicinity, that I do hereby undertake to be accountable for the payment of the notes issued by the Milford Bank, as far as the sum of 30,0001. will extend to pay :" Held that the bank having afterwards stopped payment, the defendant was not? liable upon this undertaking to an action by an individual holder, who had taken the notes after notice of such undertaking, but before the stoppage. Bateman and others brought their action on the case in the Court of Common Pleas against N. Phillipps, and declared in the first count, that whereas before the making of the promise of the defendant, &c. C. A. Phillipps and T. Phillipps were carrying on the business of bankers, at a banking-house called the Milford and Pembrokeshire Bank, at Milford, in the county of Pembroke, and as such bankers had made and issued divers promissory notes, payable to bearer on demand, which notes at the time of making the promise, &c. were outstanding in the hands of divers and very many holders, and were wholly unsatisfied by the said C. A. P. and T. P. and whereas the credit of the said C. A. P. and T. P. as such bankers, had become suspected, and their sufficiency doubted, whereof the defendant had notice, and was desirous of supporting and maintaining the credit of the said C. A. P. and T. P. as such bankers, and thereupon afterwards, on the 22d of March, 1810, in consideration of the premises and also in consideration that the plaintiffs at the request of the defendant would, among other persons of the public, accept and receive as current money such of the said notes then issued by the said C. A. P. and T. P. as such bankers, of and from the holders thereof, as might be tendered to them in that behalf, the defendant under-[357]-took and promised the plaintiffs to be accountable to such of the public as were or should be holders of the said notes so made and issued as aforesaid, for the payment of the same, as far as the sum of 30,0001. would extend to pay. And then the plaintiffs averred that they confiding in the said promise of the defendant did, amongst other persons of the public, afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, and on divers other days, &c., accept and receive as current money of and from sundry holders thereof all sueb of the said notes so made and issued by the said C. A. P. and T. P. as such bankers, as were tendered to them in that behalf; the sums of money payable by which notes so accepted and received by the plaintiffs, in the whole amounted to 30001.; and although the said C. A. P. and T. P. afterwards, and while the plaintiffs held the said last-mentioned notes, to wit, on the 28th of August; 1810 became bankrupt, and wholly unable to pay and satisfy the last-mentioned notes; of all which premises the defendant had notice; and although the defendant hath not since the making of his promise, been accountable to such of the public as were or became holders of the said notes so made and issued as aforesaid for the payment of, or paid or satisfied, so many of the said notes so made and issued as aforesaid, as the sum of 30,0001. would extend to pay, or any note whatsoever so made and issued by the said C. A. P. and T. P. but hath therein wholly failed and made default; and although the defendant was afterwards requested by the plaintiffs to pay to them the amount of the said sums made payable by the said notes so by them accepted and received as aforesaid; yet the defendant would not, when so requested, or at any [358] time afterwards, be accountable for the payment, nor did pay or satisfy the said notes so accepted and received by the plaintiffs, but refused so to do; whereby the said notes so accepted and received by the plaintiffs have been and still are wholly due and unpaid to them. The second count only differed from the first in these respects, that after making an additional recital that C. A. P. and T. P. as such bankers, had before the making of the defendant's promise, and until the suspicion of their credit after mentioned, received credit as solvent and sufficient persons, and made and issued divers notes, &c. (as before) it stated the consideration and promise thus. In consideration of the premises, and also in consideration that the- 16 EAST, 359. PHILLIPPS V. BATEMAN 1125 said several persons who were then or thereafter should become the holders of the said notes would give the same credit to the said C.- A. P. and T. P. as such bankers, touching the said notes, as the said C. A. P. and T. P. had at any time before the said suspicion of their credit received, and would also consider and treat the said notes as good, the defendant promised such of the public severally and respectively as then were or thereafter should become the holders of the said notes to be accountable for the payment of the said notes as far as 30,0001. would extend to pay. And then the plaintiffs averred that they, at the time of making the defendant's promise, and before the insolvency of the said C. A. P. and T. P. became the holders of sundry of the said notes, to the amount of 30001., and so continued to be and were until the insolvency of the said C. A. P. and T. P.; and that they, confiding in the promise of the defendant, did, from the making of the said promise until the insolvency of the said C. A! P. and T. P. [359] give the same credit to them as such bankers touching the said notes, as the said C. A. P. and T. P. at any time before the suspicion of their credit received, and did "also consider and treat the said notes as good; and although the said C. A. P. and T. P. did afterwards, and while the plaintiffs were such holders of the said notes, to wit, on the 28th of August 1810 become insolvent, and wholly unable to pay and satisfy the said notes, &c.: and so it concluded as in the first count. The third count, after reciting as in the first, that before the defendant's promise C. A. P. and T...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Coulls v Bagot's Executor and Trustee Company Ltd
-
Hennings v Rothschild
...to Lowe, and not to the Plaintiff. A general promise made to a class of persons cannot be sued on by an individual;-Phillips v. Bateman (16 East, 356); atid where a contract has been altered or transferred, and the consideration is to be refunded, it can only belong to the party with whom t......
-
Elworthy and Others v Thomas Maunder
...shewed cause, endeavoured to answer these objections; but; Wilde ;Serjt., in support of the rule, having referred to Phillipps v. Batemm (16 East, 356), where a general undertaking, "to be accountable for the payment of the notes issued by the Milford bank, as far as the sum of 30,0001. wil......