Robson and Waugh v Bennett and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 May 1810 |
| Date | 28 May 1810 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 127 E.R. 1128
Common Pleas Division
1128 TIGHE V. CRAFTtil 2 Taint. 381 [387] The judgmebt of the Court was delivered in the present term (a) by MANSFIELD C. J., deciding, that this contract did not bind the Defendant in error personally ; because he did not contract on behalf of himself personally, but on behalf of the corporation, that he acted merely as an agent ; and although the corporation had not constituted the mayor their bailiff or agent by instrument under seal, so that he was not competent by that contract to bind the corporation, yet as the Plaintiff in error signed it, perhaps the corporation might have sustained an action on this contract. In equity, a contract signed by one party would be enforced, and it was not clear that it was different in law. An action lies not against the known agent, who is in the light or state of a broker ; and this case was within the same principle which governed the cue of Matbeath- v. Haldimand. The judgment of the Court of King's Bench therefore must be Reversed. TIGHE V. CRAFTER. May 28, 1810. If default be made in payment of the interest on a bond, the principal whereof is not yet due, the Court will not stay proceedings on payment of the interest and costs. But semble, that they would restrain the execution to the interest and costa This was an action of debt on bond conditioned for payment of a principal sum in 1815, and for payment of the interest in the mean time. And the action was brought on account of a default in paying the interest. [3883 Shepherd, Se*. had, on a former day, obtained a rule nisi to stay proceedings, upon payment of the interest and the costs of the action. Lens Setjt. now shewed cause : the default in payment of the interest renders the whole bond forfeited. The Court held that they could not stay the proceedings : the bond was forfeited : it might remain to see what should be done to restrain the execution, if the Plaintiff should levy more than was fit. But there was no ground to stay the action. Rule discharged. dt/S4e.,449,22/4"trv.- /7444- 4C.'171;- ROBSON AND WAUGH V. BENNETT AND ANOTHER. May 28, 1810. By the practice of the London bankers, if one banker who holds a check drawn on another banker, presents it after four o'clock, it is not then paid, but a mark is put on it, to shew that the drawer has assets, and that it will be paid ; and checks so marked have a priority, and are exchanged or paid next day at noon, at the clearing house : Held that a check presented after four, and so marked, and carried to the clearing house next day, but not paid, no clerk from the drawee's house attending, need not be presented for payment at the banking house of the drawee.Such a marking under this practice amounts to an acceptance, payable next day at the clearing house, It is not neosseary to present for payment a check payable on demand till the day following the day on which it is given.A person receiving a check on a banker is equally authorized in lodging it with his own banker to obtain payment, as he would be in paying it away in the course of trade.Although in consequence thereof the notice of its dishonour is postponed a day, one day being allowed for notice from the payee to the drawer, after the day on which notice is given by the bankers to the payee. This was 'an action of assumpsit for goods sold and delivered by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants. Plea, the general issue. The cause came on to be tried at the sittings for London after last Michaelmas term, before [389] Mansfield C. J., when a verdict was found for the Plaintiffs, subject to the opinion of the Court, on the following case. FOr- the puppose of discharging a balance due to the Plaintiffs for coals sold and delivered, a check dated 11th September 1809, drawn on the Defendants' bankers Messre. Bloxim, and signed by the Defendant Bennett, was delivered to the Plaintiff Waugh at the coal exchange on the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
William Hyde, since Deceased, v Mary Price, John Price, William Price, William Mann Godshall, Thomas Shearcroft, Edward Walwyn Shepherd, and William John Playters, all since Deceased, and The Governor and Company of the Bank of England; and George Hart v Chase Cradock, William Temple, George Maule, and William Brown and Mary, his wife
...bond debt. Upon rehearing, before Lord Thurlow, the exceptions were overruled. This case was subsequent to Lord Lonsdale v. Church, 2 Term Reports, 388, stated hereafter. Mr. Justice Buller here evidently lays it down, that according to the recent cases the Courts of Common Law would direct......
-
Mƒ€™DONNELL v MURRAY
...6 B. & C. 373. Robson v. Oliver 10 Q. B. 704. Grant v. VaughanENR 3 Burr. 1516. Beven v. HillENR 2 Camp. 181. Robson v. BennettENR 2 Taunt. 388. COMMON LAW REPORTS. 495 us, to sustain that finding, and now consents to have it struck out M. T. 1859, . from the verdict. The argument, at both ......
-
Doe dem. Stansbury against Arkwright
...situation, after the interview with Reader, as if the cheque had been marked " approved," which would bind a banker; Robson v. Bennett (2 Taunt. 388). Supposing, however, that the defendants were entitled to cancel such approval, (which they were not, since Reader, when he gave it, knew the......
-
Lynn v Bell
...N. 460. Foley v. HillENR 2 H. L. C. 28. Moore v. BarthropENR 1 B. & C. 5; 2 Dow. & Ry. 28. Balxton v. Pye 2 Wil. 309. Robson v. BennettENR 2 Taun. 388. keene v. Beard 8 C. B. (N.S.) 372. Eyre v. WallerENR 5 H. & N. 460. keene v. Beard 8 C. B. (N.S.) 381. Hopkinson v. ForsterELR L. R. 19 Eq.......