Polhill against Walter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 January 1832 |
| Date | 20 January 1832 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 43
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 1 L. J. K. B. 92. Referred to, Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford Railway v. Slattery, 1878, 3 App. Cas. 1202. Considered, Derry v. Peek, 1889, 14 App. Cas. 365. Distinguished, Oliver v. Bank of England, [1901] 1 Ch. 652; [1902] 1 Ch. 610; [1903] A. C. 114. Referred to, Yonge v. Toynbee, [1910] 1 K. B. 224.
polhill against walter. Friday, January 20th, 1832. A bill was presented for acceptance at the office of the drawee, when he was absent. A., who lived in the same house with the drawee, being assured by one of the payees that the bill was perfectly regular, was induced to write on the bill an acceptance as by the procuration of the drawee, believing that the acceptance would be sanctioned, and the bill paid by the latter. The bill was dishonoured when due, and the indorsee brought an action against the drawee, and, on proof of the above facts, was nonsuited. The indorsee then sued A. for falsely, fraudulently, and deceitfully representing that he was authorized to accept by procuration; and on the trial the jury negatived all fraud in fact: Held, notwithstanding, that A. was liable, because the making of a representation which a party knows to be untrue, and which is intended, or is calculated, from the mode in which it is made, to induce another to act on the faith of it so that he may incur damage, is a fraud in law, and A. must be considered as having intended to make such representation to all who received the bill in the course of its circulation. Held also, that A. could not be charged as acceptor of the bill, because no one can be liable as acceptor but the person to whom the bill is addressed, unless he be an acceptor for honour. [S. C. 1 L. J. K. B. 92. Referred to, Dublin, WicTdow and Wexford Railway v. Slattery, 1878, 3 App. Gas. 1202. Considered, Derry v. Peek, 1889, 14 App. Cas. 365. Distinguished, Oliver v. Bank of England, [1901] 1 Ch. 652; [1902] 1 Ch. 610; [1903] A. C. 114. Referred to, Yonge v. Toynbee, [1910] 1 K. B. 224.] Declaration stated, in the first count, that J. B. Fox, at Pernambuco, according to the usage of merchants, drew a bill of exchange, dated the 23d of April 1829, upon Edward Hancorne, requesting him, sixty days after sight thereof, to pay Messrs. Turner, Brade, and Co., or order, 1401. 16s. 8d. value received, for Mr. Robert Lott; that afterwards the defendant, well knowing the premises, did falsely, fraudulently, and deceitfully represent and pretend that he was duly authorized by Hancorne to accept the said bill of ex-[115]-change according to the usage of merchants, on behalf and by the procuration of Hancorne, to whom the same was so directed as aforesaid, and did then and there falsely and fraudulently pretend to accept the same by the procuration of Hancorne; that the said bill of exchange was indorsed over, and by various indorsements came to the plaintiff, of which the defendant had notice; that the plaintiff, relying upon the said pretended acceptance, and believing that the defendant had authority from Hancorne so to accept the bill on his behalf, and in consideration thereof, and of the indorsement, and of the delivery of the bill to him the plaintiff, received and took from the last indorsers the bill as ,and for payment of the sum of money in the bill specified, for certain goods and merchandizes of the plaintiff sold to the indorsers; that when the bill became due, it was presented to Hancorne for payment, but that he, Hancorne, did not nor would pay the same, whereupon the plaintiff brought an action against Hancorne as the supposed acceptor thereof; and that by reason of the premises, and the said false representation and pretence of the defendant, the plaintiff not only lost the sum of money in the bill of exchange mentioned, which has not yet been paid, but also expended a large sum, to wit, 421. 7s., in unsuccessfully suing Hancorne, and also paid 171. to him as his costs. The second count, after stating the drawing of the bill according to the custom of merchants, by Fox, as in the first count, alleged that the defendant, well knowing the premises, did falsely and deceitfully represent and pretend that he, the defendant, was duly authorized by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loughnan v Barry and Byrne
...3 Taunt. 274. Abbotts v. Barry 5 B. Moo. 98. Perkins v. Smith 1 Wils. 328. Gompertz v. BartlettENR 2 E. & B. 849. Polehill v. WalterENR 3 B. & Ad. 114. Milne v. MarwoodENR 15 C. B. 778. Dixon v. YatesENR 5 B. & Ad. 313. Tooke v. HollingworthENR 5 T. R. 231. Milwwod v. ForbesENR 4 Esp. 171, ......
-
John Collen, against Mary Wright, Robert John Wright and Adam Taylor the Younger, Executrix and Executors of Robert Wright
...in the notes in Smith's Leading Cases (2 Smith's L. Ca. (4th ed.) 297) to Thomson v. Davenport (9 B. & C. 78). In Polhill v. Walter (3 B. & Ad. 114) Lord Tenterden intimates that, had the defendant been perfectly honest in his affirmation of authority, he would not have been answerable in a......
-
Edwards v Porter
...of the agent is false to his knowledge, though not fraudulent, and where it is both false and fraudulent. In Polhill v. Walter, 3 B. & Ad. 114, a bill was presented at the office of a drawer who was absent. A, who lived in the house with the latter person, on being assured that the bill was......
-
Udell v Atherton and Another
...it was false, and false to his knowledge, and this constitutes a false and fraudulent misrepresentation Pothill v. Walters (3 B. & Ad. 114), yet the owner was held not to be lesponsible So also, in Colemau v Rich s (16 C B 104), the defendant was a wharfinger at Bristol, and one Board was h......