Robinson and Cherry against Reynolds, one of the Publie Officers of the National Bank of Ireland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1841 |
| Date | 01 January 1841 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 114 E.R. 76
IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 1 G. & D. 526. Approved, Thiedemann v. Goldschmidt, 1859, 1 Giff. 147; 1 De G. F. & J. 11. Referred to, Leather v. Simpson, 1871, L. E. 11 Eq. 405.
[196] in the exchequer chamber. (error from the queen's bench.) robinson and cherry against reynolds, one of the Public Officers of the National 'S-i^ ^"'k f Ireland. 1841. In assumpsit by indorsee of a bill of exchange against i 'acceptoi-s defendants pleaded that K., the drawer, was in the habit of delivering 3 :goods to C., to be carried by him to Liverpool, consigned and deliverable there to K.'s order and, on so doing, of receivitig from G. a receipt for the goods, bill of hiding, or document, which, by the custom of merchants, when indorsed for value, passed the property in the goods, and entitled the indorsee to have them delivered to him. That K. used to obtain advances from plaintiff on indorsing to plaintiff such document, and drawing and delivering to him a bill of exchange on defendants (who traded at Liverpool as purchasers and commission agents of such goods as K. delivered to C.), if the goods were deliverable to defendants, or on some other person to whom they were deliverable. That plaintiff used to forward the indorsed document to Liverpool, and to have it presented to defendants (or such other person), and, on the faith thereof, and at plaintiff's request, and in consideration of such security on the goods, defendants (or such other person) used to accept the bill of exchange: of all which plaintiff had notice. That K. pretending to act in pursuance of such usage, fraudulently indorsed and (b) Candell v. London, cited 1 T. R. 520. 2 Q. B. 197- ROBINSON V. REYNOLDS 77 delivered to plaintiff a document in the usual form, to which C.'s signature was forged, pretending that it was genuine and that the goods mentioned in it had been delivered to C., which was false; and K. at the same time indorsed the bill of exchange to plaintiff, who advanced K. the amount on the faith of the document. That plaintiff indorsed the document, and had it presented to defendants with the bill of exchange, and requested them to accept the bill of exchange on the faith and in consideration of the delivery of the document, and delivered the document to them as a true one. That defendants, in consideration of the goods mentioned in the document, and confiding and relying on, and in consideration and on the faith of, the document, and in ignorance of its being forged, accepted the bill of exchange for and at the request of plaintiff. That so the consideration for the acceptance, which defendants had been induced to make under the mistake into which they had been led by the said conduct and indorsement of plaintiff, wholly failed; and that there never was any other consideration for the acceptance. The plea did not allege that plaintiff knew the document to be forged, or represented it to be genuine. Held, by the Court of Queen's Bench, on motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, to be a bad plea. Judgment of the Queen's Bench affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber. [S. C. 1 G. & D. 526. Approved, Thiedemann v. GoldsrAmult, 1859, 1 Gift'. 147 ; 1 De G. F. & J. 11. Referred to, Leather v. Simjison, 1871, L. E. 11 Eq. 405.] The defendant in error (the plaintiff below) declared against the plaintiffs in error, in assumpsit. The first count was on a bill of exchange made by Pat Keegan, 7th February 1838, directed to defendants, payable to order, for 2001., at sixty days after date, accepted by defendants, and indorsed to the National [197] Bank of Ireland. Second count, on an account stated. Plea 1. To the first count, that, long before and at the time of the making of the bill of exchange in the first count mentioned, and thenceforth until and at the time of the accepting of the said bill of exchange by the defendants, as in the first count mentioned, the said Pat Keegan, in the said first count mentioned, carried on trade and business in Ireland, and, in the course of such trade and business, was, during all the time aforesaid, used and accustomed, from time to time, to deliver in Ireland to certain carrier^ to wit a certain company called the City of Dublin Steam Company, divers goods and merchandizes to be carried and conveyed for him by the said company in and by certain vessels to Liverpool in, &c., consigned and deliverable at Liverpool to his order, and, upon so delivering such goods to the said company, so to be carried and delivered as aforesaid, Keegan, during all the time aforesaid, was used and accustomed to take and receive, of and from the said company, a carrier's receipt, bill of lading, or document, similar to and corresponding with the one hereinafter set out, of and for such goods and merchandizes, signed by the agent of the said company ; the same being, by the usage and custom of merchants, a negotiable instrument, by the indorsement whereof for value the property of and in the goods and merchandizes mentioned therein passes to the indorsee thereof, and by virtue of the possession of which, so indorsed for value, the indorsee thereof for value can obtain the possession and delivery to him by the said carriers of such goods and merchandizes as aforesaid. And Keegan, upon having so delivered such goods and merchandizes, and so taken [198] and received such receipt, bill of lading, or document, as aforesaid was during all the time aforesaid used and accustomed to obtain, and did from time to time obtain, advances from the said National Bank of Ireland on delivering to the said National Bank of Ireland such receipt, bill of lading, or document as aforesaid of and for such goods and merchandizes, so signed by the agent for the said City of Dublin Steam Company as aforesaid, and indorsed by him to the said National Bank, and on hia drawing and delivering to the said bank a bill of exchange on the said defendants (who during all the time aforesaid carried on trade and business in Liverpool as purchasers of, and commission agents for, the sale of such goods and merchandizes as Keegan was in the habit of so delivering to the said company as aforesaid for the purposes aforesaid), if he intended such goods to be delivered to the defendants at Liverpool, or some other person or persona carrying on such trade and business, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Securities Trust Ltd v Hugh Moore Alexander Ltd
... ... plaintiff Company commenced proceedings against the defendant Company for damages for negligent ... ...