Pruessing against Ing
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 January 1821 |
| Date | 25 January 1821 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 912
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
pbuessing against ing. Thursday, January 25th, 1821. A promissory note for the payment of 301. at three months after date, with interest from the date, requires a stamp applicable to a note not exceeding 301. Declaration on a promissory note, by which the defendant promised to pay to the plaintiff, three months after the date thereof, 301., with lawful interest from the date 4B.&ALD. 205. PITT V. SHEW 913 thereof. At the trial before Holroyd J., at the last Middlesex sittings, it appeared upon the production of the note that it was written on a stamp applicable to a 301. note. It was then objected, that inasmuch as the note was given for 301., with lawful interest from the date thereof, it was in effect a security for 301. and 7s. 6d., three months' interest thereon; and therefore, within the 55 G. 3, c. 184, Sehed. part 1, was given for the payment of a sum exceeding 301., and ought to have had a stamp of 3s. 6d. The learned Judge directed the jury to find [205] a verdict for the plaintiff, with liberty for the defendant to move to enter a nonsuit; and Chitty now moved accordingly, and urged the same arguments as were offered at the trial; and he cited Cameron v. Smith (2 B. & A. 305), to shew that where interest is reserved on the face of a bill it forms part of the debt, and therefore may be added to the principal, so as to constitute a good petitioning creditor's debt under a commission of bankruptcy. Here, the interest is expressly reserved on the face of the note, and the sum for which it was made payable is 301. 7s. 6d., the principal and interest. It ought, therefore, to have had a stamp appropriated to a note given for the payment of a sum of money exceeding 301.; and he also cited Israel v. Benjamin (3 Campb. 40), where this very point came under the consideration of the Court, and was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horan v Quilter
...IR 207 2002 1 ILRM 450 2001/3/735 STROUD STROUD'S JUDICIAL DICTIONARY OF WORDS & PHRASES 6ED 2000 JOULE V TAYLOR 7 EX 58 PRUESSING V ING 4 b & ALD 204 LONDON CHATHAM & DOVER RAILWAY CO V SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY CO 1893 AC 429 STEWART ARBITRATION COMMENTARY & SOURCES 2003 92 DEBTORS (IRL) ACT......
-
D'orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid
... ... The application for special leave is brought by a client (the applicant) whose action for negligence against the respondents was summarily terminated on the basis that his statement of claim disclosed no arguable cause of action ... 3 ... ...
-
George Simson v John Cooke and Others, Executors of William Peareth
...Scott v. Alsopp (2 Price, 20) arose on the 48 G. 3, c. 149, and therefore does nob apply to the present question ; and Pruessing v. Ing (4 B. & A. 204), shews that additional sums accruing in the way of interest need not, with reference to the stamp-duty, be considered in computing the amou......
-
Firmin v Crucifix and Staff
...plea, on which judgment has been given for the plaintiff on demurrer, cannot be used at the trial of the cause as an admission on the (a) 4 B. & A. 204. That was not the case of a bond, but of a bill of exchange However, Loid Tenterden, the only Judge who gave an opinion, and for aught that......