Richard Pooley against William Thang Harradine
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 February 1857 |
| Date | 24 February 1857 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 119 E.R. 1307
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 26 L. J. Q. B. 156; 3 Jur. N. S. 488; 5 W. R. 405. Followed, Taylor v. Burgess, 1859, 5 H. & N. 5; Greenough v. M'Clelland, 1860, 2 El. & El. 424. Adopted, Bailey v. Edwards, 1864, 4 B. & S. 773; Price v. Kirkham 1864, 3 H. & C. 444; Ewin v. Lancaster, 1865, 12 L. T. 633. Referred to, Maingay v. Lewis, 1870, Ir. R. 5 C. L. 233; Oriental Financial Corporation v. Overend, Gurney and Company, 1871-74, L. R. 7 Ch. 145 (n); L. R. 7 H. L. 348. Adopted, Phillips v. Foxall, 1872, L. R. 7 Q. B. 680; Swire v. Redman, 1876, 1 Q. B. D. 542. Referred to, Rouse v. Bradford Banking Company, [1894] 2 Ch. 75; [1894] A. C. 586; Leicestershire Banking Company v. Hawkins, 1900, 16 T. L. R. 318.
eichard pooley against william thang harradine. Tuesday, February 24th, 1857. Action on a promissory note. Plea on equitable grounds, that defendant made the notes jointly with J. for J.'s accommodation, and as surety for J.; and that the notes were delivered to plaintiff arid taken by him on an agreement between them that defendant should be liable as surety only, and with notice that he was surety only; and that afterwards plaintiff, without defendant's consent, gave time to J., but for which he might have obtained payment. On demurrer,-Held : that, though the absolute written contract between defendant and plaintiff contained in the note could not be varied by parol in equity any more than at law, yet an equity arose from the relation of surety and principal between defendant and J., and the notice thereof to plaintiff at the time he took the nole; and therefore that the plea was good,-Quare, whether the equity would have existed if the notice had been after the taking of the notes, but before the giving of time. [S. C. 26 L. J. Q. B. 156; 3 Jur. N. S. 488; 5 W. R. 405. Followed, Taylor v. Burgess, 1859, 5 H. & N. 5; Greenmtffh v. M'Clelland, 1860, 2 El. & El. 424. Adopted, Bailey v. Edwards, 1864, 4 B. & S. 773; Price v. Kirkham 1864, 3 H. & C. 444; Ewin v. Lancaster, 1865, 12 L. T, 633. .Referred to, Maingay v. Lewis, 1870, Ir. B. 5 C. L. 233; Oriental Financial Corporation v. Overend, Gwrney and Company, 1871-74, L. R. 7 Ch. 145 (n); L. R. 7 H. L. 348. Adopted, Phillips v. Foxall, 1872, L. R. 7 Q. B. 680; Swire v. Bed-man, 1876, 1 Q. B. D. 542. Referred to, Mouse v. Bradford Banking Company, [1894] 2 Ch. 75; [1894] A. C. 586; Leicestershire Banking Company v. Hawkins, 1900, 16 T. L. R. 318.] The declaration contained three counts on three promissory notes, made by defendant. Plea, to all three counts, for a defence on equitable grounds: That he, the said defendant, made the said notes at the request of and for the sole accommodation of John Harradine, jointly with John Thang Harradine and one Thomas Harradine, as the surety only of John Harradine, to secure a debt due to the plaintiff solely from John Harradine; and, save as aforesaid, there never was any value or consideration for the defendant making the said notes or either of them; and the said notes were delivered to the plaintiff, and accepted by him from the defendant, upon an express agreement between them that the defendant should be liable thereon as surety only for John Harradine; and that plaintiff, at the time the said promissory notes were made as aforesaid, had [432] notice and knowledge of the same having been so made by defendant as such surety as aforesaid; and that plaintiff, whilst holder of the said notes, without the knowledge or consent of defendant, for a good and valuable consideration in that behalf, agreed to give and gave to John Harradine time for the payment of the said notes respectively, to wit from the times when the same became due until the commencement of this suit, and forbore to enforce payment of the same during that time, upon and for the consideration aforesaid; and 1308 POOLEY V. HARBADINE 7 EL. ft BL. 439. that the plaintiff could and might, had he not given such time as aforesaid, have obtained payment from John Harradine of the said notes and all moneys due thereon. And that by means of the premises he the defendant hath been greatly prejudiced and damnified, and bath been and is wholly discharged from all liability to pay the amount due upon the said notes and each of them. Demurrer. Joinder. Atherton, in last Hilary Term (a), argued for the plaintiff, and O'Malley for the defendant. The arguments and authorities are so fully stated in the judgment as to render any further report unnecessary. Cur. adv. vult. Coleridge J., in this Vacation (February 24th), delivered judgment. This was an action by the payee against the maker of three promissory notes. The defendant pleaded, by way of equitable defence, that the notes were made by him jointly with John Harradine and Thomas Harra-[433]-dine, and that he made them at the request and for the accommodation of John Harradine, as the surety only of John Harradine, and to secure a debt due from John Harradine solely, to the plaintiff, and without value or consideration; and that the notes were delivered to the plaintiff, and accepted by him from the defendant, upon an express agreement between them that the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Coles Myer Finance Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
-
Bailey and Others v Edwards
...debtors until they had been divested of their property; and therefore the defendant is discharged. [They cited Poaley v. Harradine (7 E. & B. 431); Strmig v. Fouler (17 C. B. 201, 219), per Williams J.; Rees v. Berrington (2 Ves. Jun. 540, 543), per Lord Loughborough ; Ex parle Glendinning ......
-
Preller and Others v Jordaan
...nie. Ek 1956 (1) SA p497 Van den Heever JA meen dat ons, volgens die voorbeeld van Commissioner for Inland Revenue v Niko, 1940 AD 416 op bl. 431, en Estate Maree v Redelinghuis, 1943 AD 547 op bll. 557 - 558, by die toekenning van koste rekening kan hou met die feit dat die punt waarop die......
-
Mouton v Die Mynwerkersunie
...1943 AD 531 op bl. 546; Estate Maree v Redelinghuys, 1943 AD 547 op bl. 557; Commissioner for E Inland Revenue v Niko, 1940 AD 416 op bl. 431. In die onderhawige geval het die appellant meerdere geskilpunte geopkiler, maar het hy net sukses behaal na aanleiding van een wat vir die eerste ke......