Robins and Others against May
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 November 1839 |
| Date | 29 November 1839 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 113 E.R. 396
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. 3 P. & D. 147; 9 L. J. Q. B. 22; 3 Jur. 1188.
robins and others against may. Friday, November 29th, 1839. An instrument in the following form : " At twelve months after date, I promise to pay Messrs. R. & Co. 5001., to be held by them as collateral security for any monies now owing to them by J. M., which they may be unable to recover on realizing the (a) See Pye v. Cooke, Moo. 864, 865. UAD.ftB.ai4. ROBINS V. MAY 397 securities they now hold, and others which may be placed in their hands by him ;" is not a promissory note, and cannot be declared on aa such. [S. C. 3 P. & D. 147 ; 9 L. J. Q. B. 22; 3 Jur. 1188.] Asaumpsit on a promissory note made by defendant, whereby he promised, at twelve months after date, to pay to plaintiffs 5001., to be held by them as collateral security for any monies then owing to them by J. Malachy, which they might be unable to recover on realizing the securities they then held, and others which might be placed in their hands by him. Plea; that the instrument mentioned in the declaration was and is the following; that is to say, [214] Devonport, 22d June 1837. At twelve months after date, I promise to pay Messrs. Robins, Foster, and Co. 5001., to be held by them as collateral security for any monies now owing to them by Mr. J. Malachy, which they may be unable to recover on realizing the securities they now hold, and others which may be placed in their hands by him. 500. thomas may. That the said instrument was made and given by defendant to plaintiffs as, and by way of, collateral security and guarantee to plaintiffs for the payment of monies then due from the said J. M. to plaintiffs, and which plaintiffs might be unable to recover on realizing the securities of J. M. which they then held, and any other securities which thereafter might be placed in their hands by J. M., and for, and upon, no other account or purpose. Wherefore the said instrument and promise wera made and given without any value or consideration. Verification. Demurrer, alleging special grounds of objection to the plea. In the margin of the demurrer-book the defendant objected to the declaration, for that the instrument stated in it was not a promissory note, but an agreement. Sir W. W. Follatt, for the plaintiff. The note is not payable on any contingency, but at a fixed time, viz. twelve months after date, and is therefore not within any of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John Storm against Edward Stirling
...into separate contracts; Johnson v. Kennion (2 Wils. 262): nor can any part of it be a contingent or conditional contract] Robins v. May (11 A. & E. 213). Lush, in reply. The question of negotiability is unimportant, as that quality ia not essential to the character of a promissory note. Cu......