Russell v Powell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 June 1845 |
| Date | 25 June 1845 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 153 E.R. 538
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 14 L. J. Ex. 269.
[418] ruhsell v. powell. June 25, 1845. -J. M., by indenture, assigned to the plaintiff" a ninth part of his share in the residue of the estate of T. H., deceased. By an order of 29 July, 1842, made in a suit in Chancery, of Powell v. Norwood, the Vice-Chancellor ordered the defendants in that suit to retain 250, being part of the produce of J. M.'s share of the residuary estate of T. H., to be paid to such person as the present defendant and J. M. should jointly direct. It was afterwards agreed between the parties, that 50, to be considered as part of the sum of 250, should be paid by the defendant to the solicitors for J. M. and the plaintiff'. An .action having been brought to recover this sum of 50, the plaintiff tendered in evidence the following document:-"To the executors of T. H., deceased. Powell v. Norwood. Gentlemen,-We do hereby authorize arid require you to pay to Mr. George Powell, or his order, the sum of 250, being the amount directed by the order of the 29th of July last, to be paid to our order. We are, gentlemen, your very obedient servants, J. M., Dec. 16th, 1842." This document was signed by J. M. only, and was unstamped :-Held, (Kolfe, B., dissentiente), that it was not a bill of exchange, and that it was admissible in evidence without a stamp. [S. C. 14 L. J. Ex. 269.] : Assumpsit The declaration stated, that on the 20th of May, 1889, by a certain indenture then made &c., one John Myrin assigned to the plaintiff'a ninth part of his share of the residue of the esfcite of one Thomas Harrison, deceased; that by a certain order of the 29th of July, 1842, made in a suit in Chancery for the administration of the estate of the said T. Harrison, deceased, it was ordered by the Vice-Chancellor that the defendants in that suit should retain 250, being part of the produce of the aaijd share of tjhe said J. Mynn of the residuary estate of the said T. Harrison, deceased, tojbe paid to; such person or persona as the now defendant and the said John Mynn should jointly direct; that afterwards, to wit, on the 13th of December, 1842, a certain agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, which was entitled " In Chancery, Powell v. Norwood," by which it was agreed that the said sum of 250, so directed by the order of the 29th of July to be paid to the joint order of the said J. Myrin and the now defendant, should be paid to and received by tli^ now defendant, and that the sum of 50, to be considered as part of the said 250, should be, immediately upon handing over the said joint order signed by the said J. Mynn, paid by the said defendant to Messrs. Miller & Carr, the solicitors for the said J. Mynn and the now plaintiff'; and that 50, other part thereof, should he paid to them as soon as the order should be obtained for a division of the funds in Court ; and that in consideration thereof [419] the defendant should execute an assignment to the now plaintiff of all his, the defendant's, claim under certain securities therein mentioned. And after alleging mutual promises to perform tho agreement, declaratioh further averred, that the defendant afterwards, to wit, on the 29th of sember, 1842, in pursuance of the arrangement, received the said sum of 250, the De that the :plaintiff, in pursuance of the agreement, and in order to enable the defendant to recover and obtain payment of the said sum of 250, caused and procured the) said J- Mynn to sign a certain order and authority, addressed to the executors of the; said T. Harrison, deceased, for the payment of the said sum of 250 to the now defendant, or to his order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diplock v Hammond
...31 Geo. 3, c. 25, s. 19. [the lord justice knight bruce. The words are, "I hereby authorize you to pay" (see Riissell v. Powell, 14 M. & W. 418).] That is in effect an order to pay, Ruff v. Webb (1 Esp. 129); Hutckinson v. Heyworth 9 A. & E. 375); Lucas v. Jones (5 Q. B. 949). They also ref......