Pidcock v Bishop
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 January 1825 |
| Date | 25 January 1825 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 107 E.R. 857
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 5 D. & R. 505; 3 L. J. 0. S. K. B. 109. Not applied, Williams v. Rawlinson, 1825, 3 Bing. 77; 10 Moore, 373. Distinguished, North British Insurance Company v. Lloyd, 1854, 10 Ex. 534. Explained, Lee v. Jones, 1864, 17 C. B. N. S. 504. Applied, Mackreth v. Walmsley, 1884, 51 L. T. 20.
[605] john pidcock, g-eorge barker, john henzey pidcock, and george pidcock against samuel hinton townsend bishop. Tuesday, January 25th, 1825. It was agreed between the vendors and vendee of goods that the latter should pay 10s. per ton beyond the market price, which sum was to be applied in liquidation of an old debt due to one of the vendors. The payment of the goods was guaranteed by a third person, but the bargain between the parties was not communicated to the surety: Held, that that was a fraud on the surety, and rendered the guaranty void. [S. C. 5 D. & B. 505; 3 L. J. 0. S. K. B. 109. Not applied, Williams v. Rawlinsm, 1825, 3 Bing. 77; 10 Moore, 373, Distinguished, North British Insurance Company v. Lloyd, 1854, 10 Ex. 534. Explained, Lee v. Jones, 1864, 17 C. B. N. S. 504. Applied, Mackreth v. Walmsley, 1884, 51 L. T. 20.] Assumpsit by the plaintiffs, manufacturers of pig iron at Lightmoor, in the county of Salop, against the defendant a dealer in iron at Bankside, London, upon his g iarantee. The guarantee declared upon was contained in a letter of the 16th ecember 1822, addressed by the defendant to the plaintiffs, and was as follows : " At the request of Mr. Tihomas Tickell, I beg to inform you that I will guaranty you in the payment of 2001. value to be delivered to him in Lightmoor pig iron." At the trial before Hullock B., at the Warwick Lent Assizes 1824, it was proved on the part of the plaintiffs, that the defendant gave the abpve mentioned guarantee, and that in February 1823 the plaintiffs supplied to Tickell twenty tons of Lightmoor pig iron of the value and price of 821. 10s., that they had applied to him for payment, but he was unable to pay any part of the money. On the part of the defendant, Tickell proved that he had formerly been in the iron trade, but had become bankrupt some time before the transaction out of which the action arose; that in the beginning 858 PIDCOCK V. BISHOP SB. & C. 606 of December 1822 he applied to John Pideock, one of the plaintiffs, (who managed the business at the Lightmoor works,) to supply him with Lightmoor pig iron on credit in the usual way, and told him that if the company would [606] supply him, he would pay him (John Pideock) ten shillings (beyond the price to be paid to the company) on every ton of iron supplied, to him, and which ten shillings was to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baker v Bradley
...therefore, entitled to the benefit of all the securities held by the principal, viz., the life interest of Mrs. Baker: Pidcock v. Bishop (3 B. & C. 605), Stone v. Compton (5 Bing. N. C. 142). Secondly, it was submitted that Mrs. Baker was restrained from anticipation: Field v. Evans (15 Sim......
-
Evans v Bremridge
...They referred to Underhill v. Horwood (10 Ves. 225); Leaf v. Gibbs (4 Car. & P. 466); Rice v. Gordon (11 Beav. 265); Pideock v. Bishop (3 B. & C. 605); WTiitcher v. Hall (5 B. & C. 269); Bonser v. Cox (4 Beav. 379). Mr. Willcock and Mr. Shapter, for the Appellant. The objection on the groun......
-
John Owen and J M. Gutch, - Appellants; Sarah Homan, - Respondent
...was ever made to her until 1849 upon the subject of the notes or bills, or of the debt owing to the Plaintiffs. In Pidcock v. Bishop (3 B. & C. 605) there does not appear to have been any communication between the creditor and the surety ; and, in that case, the guarantee was held to be voi......
-
Spencer v Handley and Burges, Executors of Richard Heald
...surety's liability might be thereby in-[419]-creased, the security so given is void at law, on the ground of fraud." Pidcock v. Bishop (3 B. & C. 605 5 D. & E. 505) is to the same effect. [Tindal C. J. referred to Jackson v. Diichaire (3 T. fi. 551).] Fraud is sought, in this case, to be in......