Ramuz v Crowe
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 June 1847 |
| Date | 07 June 1847 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 154 E.R. 70
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 16 L J Ex 280, 11 Jur 715
ramuz 11 crowe June 7, 1847 -The payee of a negotiable bill of exchange, having lost it, cannot, without pioclucing it, maintain an action for the recovery of its amount against the acceptor upon its arriving at maturity Drawer of bill of exchange payable to his, own order v acceptoi -Plea, th.it after acceptance, and before action, plaintiff lost the bill, and that it still remains lost, and that plaintiff was not then, nor now is, the holder 01 possessoi of it Replication, that the bill had never been indorsed, nor was it transferable by delivery, 01 capable of being enfoiced or put in suit against defendant by any othei peison than plaintiff, that plaintiff up to the commencement of the suit, was alone entitled to be the holder, and to receive the amount of it ft am defendant, of which defendant at the commencement of the suit had notice -Held, on demurrer to the replication, that defendant was entitled to judgment [S C 16 L J Ex 280, 11 Jur 715] Debt The thud count of the declaration was by the plaintiff, as the dtawei of a bill of exchange payable to his own order, and accepted by the defendant (a) Pollock, C B, Alclerson, B, Rolfo, U, t'latt, B 1 EX-168. KAMUZ V. CROWE 71 Plea, that after the acceptance of the hill of exchange in the third count mentioned, and before the commencement of this suit, to wit, on &c., the plaintiff lost the bill of exchange in the third count mentioned out of his possession, and that the same at the commencement of this suit remained and still remains lost and not found, and the plaintiff was not, at the commencement of this suit, nor is he, the holder of the bill of exchange in the third count mentioned, or possessed thereof, nor hath the defendant found the same, nor is the same in his possession, custody, or power, or under his control. Verification. Replication, that after the acceptance of the said bill of exchange in the third count mentioned, and before the commencement of this suit, to wit, on tho day and in the [168] year in the said plea mentioned, he the plaintiff lost the said bill of exchange in the third count mentioned out of his possession, and the same, at the titue of the commencement of this suit, remained lost and not found, in manner and form as in the said plea mentioned, and the same still remains lost and not found. And the plaintiff further says, that by reason merely of such loss, and not for any other reason, cause, or matter, or upon any other account whatsoever, he the plaintiff was not the holder of the said bill or possessed thereof as in the said plea mentioned. And the plaintiff further says, that the said bill had not been nor was, either at the time it was so lost by him the plaintiff as aforesaid, or at the time of the commencement of this suit, or at any other time, nor hath it been, nor is it either indorsed by the plaintiff, or transferable by delivery, or capable of being enforced or put in suit against the defendant by any other person but the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mƒ€™DONNELL v MURRAY
...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 Exch. 167. Wain v. Bailey 2 Per. & D. 507. Charnley v. GrundyENR 14 C. B. 608. Clay v. CroweENRENR 8 Exch. 295; S. C., in Error, 9 Exch. 604. Walmsley v......
-
Widders, App, Gorton, Resp
...a complete state,-negotiable,-at the time of the loss. It is not stated here whether the bills were indorsed or not.] In Ramuz v. Crowe, 1 Exch. 167, it was held to be immaterial whether the bill was negotiable or not. Besides, it is sufficiently apparent that these bills were indorsed; for......
-
Crowe v Clay
...call on the party liable on the bill, on due indemnity, to give him another bill or pay him the amount. In the case of llamuz v Crowe (1 Exch. 167) this law was extended to the case of a bill payable to the drawer's order, though not indorsed at the time of the loss, as the bill had been in......
-
Clay v Crowe
...requires the production of the instrument befoie a party to it can be called on to pay it And this case was followed in Kamux v L'-iowe (1 Exch 167) The case of Wain v Bailey (10 A & E 616), however, decides that this doctinie applies only to negotiable bills The loss of a note or bill paya......