Richard Cudwell Gardner, James Sykes and John Sykes Gardner against Walsh
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1855 |
| Date | 01 January 1855 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 119 E.R. 412
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 24 L. J. Q. B. 285; 1 Jur. N. S. 828; 3 W. R. 460. Observed upon, Aldous v. Cornwell, 1868, L. R. 3 Q. B. 578. Referred to, Suffell v. Bank of England, 1881-82, 7 Q. B. D. 272; 9 Q. B. D. 555.
RICHARD CtTDWELL GARDNER, JAMES SYKES AND JOHN SYKKS GARDNER against S3.IK-B.3i2i5-WALSH. 1855. Action against A. on a joint and several promissory note made by A., B. and C. Plea: That the note at the time when it was first made was intended by defendant to be, and was, made by B. and defendant only, and that, after it was made by B. and defendant, being the making by the defendant in the declaration mentioned, and after the note " was completely issued and negotiated, that ia to say by " B. and defendant, plaintiff altered it in a material part by causing C. to sign it as a joint and several maker, and that this was not in correction of any mistake, nor to further any intention of the parties existing when the note was first made by defendant, or first issued and negotiated. Issue thereon. -At the trial, it appeared that B., being indebted to plaintiff, agreed to get two sureties,; defendant and G., to join her in a joint and several note to plaintiff. B. and defendant signed the note together, and gave it to plaintiff. The evidence tended to shew that, when defendant signed it, plaintiff and B. both intended that C. should afterwards sign, but that defendant was not informed of this. Defendant had a verdict. On a rule for a new trial:-Held : (overruling Catton v. Simpson, 8 A. & E. 136) that the addition of C.'s name was a material alteration, and, if made after the note was issued, would avoid it. But the Court, BEL.ftBL.lt GARDNER V. WAtSH 413 without deciding whether the note wa in point of law issued, supposing the plaintiffs and B. did not suppose it complete, though defendant did, granted a new trial, with leave to amend the plea, that the question might be raised distinctly. [S. C. 24 L. J. Q. B. 285 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 828; 3 W. R. 460. Observed upon, AUmis v. Cornwdl, 1868, L. R. 3 Q. B. 578. Referred to, Su/ell v. Bank of England, 1881-82, 7 Q. B. D. 272; 9 Q. B. D. 555.] Count: That defendant and one Elizabeth Burton and one Alice Clarke, by their promissory note now overdue, jointly and severally promised to pay to plaintiffs, or order, 5001. Plea, amongst others: " That the said promissory note, at the time when the same was first made and drawn, was intended by the defendant to be, and was made and drawn by, the said Elizabeth Barton and the defendant only ; and that, after the same was go made [84] and drawn by the said Elizabeth Barton and the defendant (being the said making thereof by the defendant in the declaration mentioned), and after the said note was completed, issued and negotiated, that is to say by the said Elizabeth Barton and the defendant, the plaintiffs, without the consent of the defendant, caused the same to be added to, altered and changed in a material part thereof, and in a material point, that is to say by causing the said Alice Clarke to sign tbe same and to become and be a joint maker thereof." Averment: that the alteration was not made in correction of any mistake originally made in the making or drawing of the note, " nor to further any intention of the said parties, or either of them, existing at the time when the note was first made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flanagan v National Bank
...pp. 88 and 89. (3) [1896] 1 Q. B. 75. (4) 12 Cl. & F. 787, at p. 805. (5) 8 A. & E. 136. (6) 7 C. B. N. S. 231. (1) [1937] I. R. 189. (1) 5 E. & B. 83. (2) [1896] 1 Q. B. 75. ...
-
Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Crossseas Shipping Ltd
...13 M & W 343; 153 ER 142. Farrow Mortgage Services Pty Ltd v Slade & Nelson (1996) 38 NSWLR 636. Gardner v WalshENRENR (1855) 5 El & Bl 83; 119 ER 412. Halgate & Osborn's Contract, Re [1902] 1 Ch 451. Koch v DicksELR [1933] 1 KB 307. Lombard Finance Ltd v Brookplain Trading LtdWLR [1991] 1 ......
-
Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Cross-seas Shipping Ltd and Others
...instrument but a guarantee, the judge then referred to three particular authorities upon the touchstone of materiality. First, to Gardner -v- Walsh (1855) 5 E&B 83 at 89 per Lord Campbell, as adopted by Scrutton LJ in Koch -v- Dicks [1933] 1 KB 307 at 320: "� we conceive that he [the defend......
-
RoyNat Ltd. v. Sommerville, MacArthur, Jessome, Parker and Ruben, (1982) 40 N.B.R.(2d) 578 (CA)
...[para. 49]. Davidson v. Cooper (1843), 13 M. & W. 342; 153 E.R. 142, refd to. [para. 49]. Gardner v. Walsh (1855), 5 E. & B. 83; 119 E.R. 412, consd. [para. Boulton v. Langmuir (1897), 24 O.A.R. 618, refd to. [para. 50]. Suffell v. Bank of England (1882), 9 Q.B. 555, refd to. [para.......