Ridout, Executor of Ridout, v Bristow et Ux
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1830 |
| Date | 01 January 1830 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 148 E.R. 1404
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 1 Tyr. 84; 9 L. J. Ex. (O. S.) 48.
kidout, Executor of Ridout, v. bristow et Ux. Exch. of Pleas. 1830.-A widow gave a promissory note "for value received by my late husband:" field, first, that the note was valid on the face of it, and secondly, that the defendant was not at liberty to shew as a defence, that it was given as an indemnity against liabilities incurred on behalf of her late husband, and that the payee had not been damnified. [S. 0. 1 Tyr. 84; 9 L. J. Ex. (0. S.) 48.] Assumpsit upon a promissory note made by the wife of the defendant dum sola, widow of the plaintiff's testator's son, for 1001., expressed to be payable to the testator twelve months after date, "for value received by my late husband." Plea, non assumpsit. At the trial, before Bolland, B., at the last Salisbury Assizes, the plaintiff having proved the note, it was objected for the defendant, that the note, upon the face of it, was a voluntary note for the payment of the debt of another person, without consideration, and was therefore void. The plaintiff then gave evidence of liabilities incurred by the testator on behalf of his son, the late husband of the defendant's wife, and of some payments in respect of those liabilities. The defendant called a witness, who proved a declaration by the plaintiff's testator, that his son had died worth worse than nothing, for he owed him several hundred pounds. This evidence was left to the Jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff; and the learned Baron gave the defendant leave to move to enter a nonsuit. E. Lawes, Serjt., accordingly, in this Term, obtained a rule for that purpose ; against which - Follett now shewed cause. The question in this case is, whether, from what appeared on the face of the note, the plaintiff ought to have been nonsuited on the gtouncl that there was no sufficient consideration between the par-[232]-ties. It is quite an elementary principle, that a promissory note imports a consideration, and that it lies on the defendant to impeach it. The only way in which the objection, aa arising on the face of the note, can be put, is this, that a legal consideration is negatived by what appears on the note. It is clear, however, that if A. owe B. a debt, and a third person choose to give B. a note, such debt is a sufficient consideration to bind the maker of the note. The cases cited as to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barber v Fox
...executor, promising to pay a debt at a future day, makes the debt his own. 2 B. & B. 460, Child v. Monins. 5 Moore, 281, S. C. See also 1 Cr. & J. 231, Ridout v. Bristow. But see 2 M. & W. 461, Norton v. Ellam.~\ K. B. xiv.-28 866 BARBER V. FOX 2 WM8. SA0ND. 137. he said it might be otherwi......
-
Quinn & Company v Moloney and Wife
...Beck v. PierceELR 23 Q. B. Div. 321. Beck v. PierceELR 23 Q. B. Div. at p. 321. Childs v. Monins 2 Br. & Bing. 460. Ridout v. BristowENR 1 Cr. & J. 231. M'Gillicuddy v. GalweyUNK Ir. R. 2 C. L. 237. Bradly v. HealthENR 3 Sim. 543. Reech v. KennegalENR 1 Ves. Sen. 126. Cornish v. AbingtonENR......
-
Balfour and Another v The Official Manager of the Sea Fire Life Assurance Comapany
...264, Coombs v. Ingram, 4 D. & K. 211 Sowerby v. Butcher, 2 C. & M. 368, 4 tyrwh. 320, Garnet v. Clarke, 11 Mod. 226, Bidout v. Bristow, 1 C. & J. 231, 1 Tyrwh. 84, WiUers v. Stevens, 15 M. & W. 208: and see Lechmere v. Fletcher, 1 C. & M. 623, Baiter v. Walker, 14 M. & W. 465, Walton v. Mas......
-
Belshaw v Mary Ann Bush
...representative, is ar adequate consideration :" for which are cited the cases of Poplewett v. Wilson (1 Stra 264), and Eidout v. Bristow (1 C. & J. 231, 1 Tyrwh. 84). The like is stated, on the same authority, [196] in Byles on Bills (6th edit. p. 96). In Walton v. Mascall (13 M, & W. 452),......