Price against Isaac Edmunds
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1830 |
| Date | 01 January 1830 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 566
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 8 L. J. K. B. O. S. 119.
566 PRICE V. EDMUNDS 10B.&C.579. PRICE against isaac edmunds. 1830. In an action by the payee against the maker of a promissory note, the plaintiff proved a joint and several note made by the defendant and another person. The defendant then proved that he was a mere f surety, having become a party to the note at the request of the other person, who was indebted to the plaintiff, and that the note not having been paid when it became due, the plaintiff, in Hilary term 1828, brought an action against the principal, which being about to be tried at the Spring Assizes 1828, the plaintiff took a cognovit for the debt, payable by three instalments, the first on the 28th of April, the others in May and June, but if the defendant failed in payment of any of these instalments, the plaintiff was to be at liberty immediately to enter up judgment, and issue execution for the whole sum. The first instalment was not duly paid : Held, that as the plaintiff, if he had proceeded in the action, could not have obtained judgment and issued execution before the 28th of April, which was the fifth day of Easter term, the plaintiff did not, by taking the cognovit, give any time to the principal debtor. Quaere, whether evidence was admissible to shew that the defendant was a surety, inasmuch as he appeared by the terms of the promissory note to be a principal. [S. C. 8L. J. K. B. 0. S. 119.] Declaration charged the defendant, as the maker of two promissory notes, each for 1501., bearing date the 3d of July 1827, payable to the plaintiff three months after date. Plea, non assumpsit. At the trial before Sir J. A. Park J., at the Spring Assizes for the county of Gloucester 1829, the plaintiff produced in evidence the two notes, whereby the defendant and Abraham Edmunds jointly and severally promised to pay the sums therein mentioned. The defendant then proved that Abraham Edmunds being indebted to the plaintiff in a sum exceeding 3001., the defendant, his [579] brother, became a party to the two notes in question. After the notes became due, the plaintiff brought an action against Abraham Edmunds, and that action was depending for trial at the Gloucester Spring Assizes 1828. The plaintiff, on the 28th of March in that year, accepted from Abraham Edmunds a cognovit for 2111. 17s. 6d., the sum then remaining due to him, payable by three instalments at one, two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Manley against Boycot
...at a specified time." [Lord Campbell C.J. That is, no doubt, the general rule.] The general rule applies to this caae. Price v. Edmunds (10 B. & C. 578), which confirms Fenlum v. Pocock (5 Taunt. 192), has latterly been always considered as laying down the right doctrine upon this point, an......
-
Stone and Others v Compton
...I think there is no material difference between this case and Fentiim v. Pocock." The same principle was acted on in Price v. Edmunds (10 B. & C. 578), Sank of Ireland v. Beres/md (6 Dow. P. C. 237), and Free v. Hawkins (8 Taunt. 92). Glyn v. Hertel only decided that the exchange of one pro......
-
Isaac against Daniel
...to expect he should be placed when he gave the guaranty," Combe v. Wool/ (8 Bing. 156, 161), English v. Dmiey(df. In Price v. Edmunds (10 B. & C. 578), it was attempted to prove (as the law then allowed upon the issue of non assumpsit there taken) that time had been given to the principal d......
-
Michaesl v Myers
...case was probably decided on the same principle as Davey v. Prendergrass. [Maule J. The rule appears to have been first adopted at (d) 10 B. & C. 578, 5 Mann. & Eyl. 287. In that case the judgment appears to have proceeded upon a misapprehension of the real effect of the acts of the plainti......