Pierson v Hutchinson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 July 1809 |
| Date | 07 July 1809 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1132
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
[211] Friday, July 7, 1809. PlERSON V. HUTCHINSOlSr. (An action at law cannot be maintained against the acceptor of a bill of exchange, which was lost, after being indorsed, although a bond of indemnity has been tendered to the defendant.) This was an action by the indorsee against the acceptor of a bill of exchange. The Attorney-General in opening the plaintiff's case stated, that he should not be able to produce the bill, as it had been lost , but he should prove that, before the action was brought, the defendant had been regularly called upon for payment, and had been offered an unexceptionable indemnity. According to the usage of metchajits, he was thereupon bound to honour his acceptance in the same manner as if the bill had still remained in the plaintiff's hands, and had been actually presented to him in the usual form. It is laid down by Marius (a) that, when an accepted bill is lost, the party to whom it is payable should notify this to the acceptor : "and when the bill falls due, and the time is come tor him to go for the money, the party which had accepted the bill is not freed irom preseat payment of the money, because the bill is lost ; for though the accepted bill be lost, yet he that accepted it is not . Neither must the acceptor think this to be a sufficient answer for him to say, Shew me my accepted bill, and I will pay you, and such like flams, merely to make use of the money a little longer time He may, in case of obstinacy, be sued at law for the money without [212] the accepted bill, and be forced to the payment thereof with costs amd damages ; and therefore, merely by reason of the loss of the accepted bill, he can have no just cause or plea to detain the money beyond the just time from the righet party who should receive the same."' Marius then goes on to say, that for this purpose the party entitled to payment has only to give bond or other reasonable writing to the content and good liking of the party that did accept the bill, and such as in reason he cannot refuse, engaging to save him harmless from the accepted bill which is lostr and to discharge him from the sum therein mentioned against the drawer and all others in due form. Therefore, if it should appear, in the present case, thatthe indemnity offered was such as in reason the defendant could not refuse, the production of the bill would be dispensed with ; and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cooke v Darwin
...Pearce v. Creswick (2 Hare, 286), Mackenzie v. Johnston (4 Madd. 373), Orosse v. Bedingjidd (12 Sim. 35), Pierson v. Hutchinson (2 Campb. 211 ; 6 Esp. 126), Tmtlmin v. Price (5 Ves. 239), Mitf. Eq. Pi. (third edit., pp. 92, 95). The form of the affidavit itself shews this, because it avers ......
-
Mƒ€™DONNELL v MURRAY
...S. 281. Pooley v. Millard 1 Cr. & Jer. 411. Champion v. Terry 3 Brod. & B. 295. Maynor v. JohnsonENR 3 Camp. 324. Pierson v. HutchinsonENR 2 Camp. 211. Woodford v. Whiteley Mood. & Mal. 517. Rolt v. WatsonENRENR 4 Bing. 273; S. C., 12 Moore, 510. Hansard v. Robinson and Ramuz v. CroweENR 1 ......
-
Bank of Montreal v. Bank of Canada and Bay Bus Terminal (North Bay) Ltd. et al., (1977) 16 N.R. 93 (SCC)
...(1902), 22 S.C. 213, refd to. [para. 70]. Hansard v. Robinson (1827), 108 E.R. 659, refd to. [para. 75]. Pierson v. Hutchinson (1809), 170 E.R. 1132, refd to. [para. Woodford v. Whitely (1830), 173 E.R. 1243, refd to. [para. 75]. Clarke v. Quince (1834), 3 Dowl. 26, refd to. [para. 75]. Bla......
-
Ramuz v Crowe
...is supported by Lord Eldon's observations in the case Kr, parte ffreenway (G;Ves. jun., 812), and the decisions in Fierson v. Hutdiinson (2 Camp. 211), lievan v. IRll (2 Camp. 381), Mayor v. Johnson (3 Camp. 324), Poole v. Smith (Holt, N. P. C. 144), D&ngerfield v. Wilby (4 Esp. 159), [174]......