Rolt, Assignee of Welsford, a Bankrupt, v Watson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 June 1827 |
| Date | 22 June 1827 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 772
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 12 Moore, 510; 5 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 172.
eolt, Assignee of Welsford, a Bankrupt, v. watsok. June 22, 1827. [S. C. 12 Moore, 510; 5 L. J. C. P. (0. S.) 172.] Defendant bad accepted a bill payable at three months for the amount of goods he had purchased :-The seller lost the bill, not having indorsed it, and became bankrupt :-No demand was ever made on the Defendant in respect of the bill:-Held, that the acceptance of this bill was no defence to an action for the value of the goods. Aasumpiit for goods sold and delivered by Welsford before his bankruptcy to the Defendant. The action was commenced in Hilary term, 1827. At the trial before Best C. J., London sittings in Easter term last, the defence was, that on the 4th of October 1825, the Defendant accepted a bill at three months, drawn by Weltford for the amount of the goods. Welsford proved that the bill had been lost, that he had never paid it away or indorsed it, nor had he offered to indemnify the Defendant upon receiving a new bill. It appeared that the Defendant had never been called on to pay the bill; and the jury finding expressly that Welsford had never indorsed it, gave a verdict for 141.10s., the value of the goods. But leave was given to the Defendant to move to set it aside. Bosanquet Serjt. moved for a rule nisi accordingly, on the ground that the Defeu- BIND. 274. DOE V. WHITE 773 dtnt having accepted a bill for the amount of the goods, which bill had never been dishonoured, was not liable to an action for the goods. If the bill were lost, the holder's course was prescribed by statute, to apply to the acceptor for a new bill, offering [274] him an indemnity : 9 & 10 W. 3, c. 17, s. 3. No such indemnity having been offered, it must be presumed that the acceptor was still liable. In Powell v. Boach (6 Esp. 76), the indorser was holden liable, though the bill was lost after it waa due. In Dangerfield v. Wilby (4 Esp. 159), Lord EHenborough said it waa incumbent on the plaintiff to shew that the bill was ao lost that the defendant would be no longer liable. In Mayor v. Johnson (3 Campb. 326), where half the note had been lost, Lord EHenborough thought that the defendant ought not to be exposed to the risk of a demand in respect of the other half; and in Poole v. Smith (Holt, N. P. C. 144), it was held, that the defendant ought not to incur...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walsh v The Dublin Port and Docks Board
...DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD. chose in action: Athenum Co. v. Pooley 3D. & J. 24. Wright v. MaidstoneENR 1 K. & J. 701. Rolt v. WatsonENR 4 Bing. 273. Wain v. Bailey 10 A. & El. 616. Hopkins v. Worcester & Birmingham Canal ProprietorsELR L. R. 6 Eq. 437. Pardoe v. PriceENR 11M. & W. 427; 16 ......
-
Mƒ€™DONNELL v MURRAY
...295. Maynor v. JohnsonENR 3 Camp. 324. Pierson v. HutchinsonENR 2 Camp. 211. Woodford v. Whiteley Mood. & Mal. 517. Rolt v. WatsonENRENR 4 Bing. 273; S. C., 12 Moore, 510. Hansard v. Robinson and Ramuz v. CroweENR 1 Exch. 167. Wain v. Bailey 2 Per. & D. 507. Charnley v. GrundyENR 14 C. B. 6......
-
Crowe v Clay
...an authority that a defence of this kind is available either in an action on the bill or on the original consideration Holt v IV at son (4 Bing. 273) is at variance with Champion v. Terry, and must be considered as overruled by Hansard v. Robinwn (7 B & C. 90) Cur adv vult [607] The judgmen......
-
Wain against Bailey
...at common law, compel the plaintiff to give a receipt, and is not obliged to take a witness with him. [Patteson J. In Roll v. Watson (4 Bing. 273), the plaintiff was allowed to recover for goods sold, though defendant had accepted a bill for the amount, which had been lost before it had bee......