Reay against Packwood
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 January 1838 |
| Date | 26 January 1838 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 715
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
[917] reay against packwood. Friday, January 26th, 1838. In assumpsit on a bill of exchange, by indorsee against acceptor, issue being joined on a plea of payment, a prior indorsee is a competent witness for the defendant, though he acknowledges, on the voir dire, that he received the money from defendant to pay plaintiff the bill. Assumpsit on a bill of exchange drawn by Banks on defendant, accepted by him, and indorsed by Banks to Goode, and by Goode to plaintiff. The defendant pleaded payment, which the plaintiff traversed, and issue was thereon joined. On the trial before Lord Denraan C.J., at the sittings in London after Trinity term 1836, the defendant called Goode, the second indorser, to prove a settlement of accounts between him and the plaintiff, in which the plaintiff received satisfaction for the bill now declared upon. The witness, being examined on the voir dire, stated that he had received money from the defendant to pay the bill to the plaintiff. It was urged that he was incompetent on this account; but the Lord Chief Justice over-ruled the objection. The witness gave evidence, and the defendant had a verdict. Erie, in the ensuing term, moved for a rule to shew cause why there should not be a new trial, on the ground that Goode's evidence ought not to have been admitted. The examination on the voir dire shewed him to be interested. If he received money from the defendant, undertaking to pay this bill, he was liable to the defendant for the amount, and for the costs of this action ; and if he obtained the money from the defendant by wrongfully representing himself as the holder, he is liable in tort for the amount of the bill, and costs. The judgment of Lord Tenterden, in Ed-[QlS]-tnonds v. Lowe (8 B. & C. 407), shews the principle on which evidence under such circumstances ia excluded. [Patteson J. mentioned Birt v. Kershaw (2 East, 458).] In more recent cases than that, the liability to costs has been held to turn the scale against a witness's admissibility, where he was otherwise indifferent; Jones v. Brooke (4 Taunt. 464), Larbalestier v. Clark (1 B. & Ad. 899). [Patteson J. That is where the liability arises from circumstances of the transaction independent of his having been agent. Where a party has merely acted as agent, it may be questioned whether the rule of liability...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yates and Others, Assignees of Samuel Seal, a Bankrupt, v Hoppe
...B. & Co. could not set off a debt due to them from A. & Co. Here, the defendant was merely an agent to pay the bill: Reay v. Pack-wood (7 Ad. & E. 917). Guthrie v. Crossley (2 C. & P. 301) differs from the present case in some of its circumstances: there, [546] there was no intervening bank......