Saunderson and Others v Pipe and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 May 1839 |
| Date | 01 May 1839 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 132 E.R. 1163
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 7 Scott, 408; 7 D. P. C 632; 8 L. J. C. P. 227. See, Garrard v. Lewis, 10 Q. B. D. 33.
5 BING. (N. C.) 425. SAUNDERSON V. PIPER 1163 [425] saundekson and others v. piper and others. May 1, 1839. [S. C. 7 Scott, 408; 7 D. P. C. 632; 8 L. J. C. P. 227. See, Garrard v. Lewis, 10 Q. B. D. 33.] A bill of exchange was expressed in figures to be drawn for 2451., in words, for two hundred. pounds, value received, with a stamp applicable to the higher amount: Held, that evidence to shew that the words " and forty-five " had been omitted by mistake was not admissible. The Plaintiffs, as indorsees, declared against the Defendants as acceptors of a bill of exchange for 2451. for value received, bearing date the 30th of August 1836, and payable six months after date. Second count on an account stated. Plea to the first count, that the Defendants did not accept; to the second, that they did not promise as in that count alleged. At the trial, the Plaintiffs produced, in support of their declaration, a bill of exchange, of which the following is a copy :- CD J3" "2451. ' f "London, Aug. 30, 1836. ^ & " Six months after date, pay to our order t^o^-UHjdred pounds for value received. "To Messrs. H. H. Piper and Co. ^ J? J" "Per Procuration of Thos. " 42 East Change. ^ &? /7 Maltby, Son and Co. S1 ^ "henry maltby. " IndorsedfTHOMAs maltby, son and Co." The jury found a verdict for the Plaintiffs for 2451. and interest, subject to the opinion of the Court upon the following case :- The Plaintiffs are extensive bill brokers in London. It was proved upon the trial, that the bill was drawn by Maltby and Co. upon, and accepted by the Defendants in payment of the sum of 2451., being the contract price of ten tons of lead sold by Maltby and Co. to the Defendants. The bill was drawn in figures for 2451., but the words " and forty-five " were omitted in the body of the bill by mistake. The bill, when drawn, [426] was upon a 6s. stamp; and the Defendants, when they accepted it, intended to accept a bill for 2451. It was further proved, that the bill was left with the Defendants for two or three weeks for their acceptance; and application was made to them three several times for the bill as a bill for 2451.; the usual mode of applying for bills for acceptance being by the amount as expressed in the figures on, the bill; and it was referred to on those occasions by the drawers and the Defendants as a bill for 2451. It was also proved, that the usual course of business among extensive bill brokers in the city of London, is, to examine the bills discounted by them, by the figures and the stamp, not by reading the body of the bill, as it would be almost impossible, from the number of bills discounted daily, to take them by any thing but the figures and stamps. On the 14th of January 1837, the Plaintiffs discounted the bill for Maltby and Co., and the Plaintiffs paid them 2451., less the discount for the same. Before the bill arrived at maturity, Maltby and Co. failed. The Defendants upon the trial objected to the admissibility of the evidence of the facts relating to the transaction in respect of which the bill was drawn, of the intention of the parties, of the circumstances relating to the applications for the acceptance, and of the Defendant's conduct in regard to them: but the evidence was received, subject to the opinion of the Court upon the admissibility of the whole or any part of the same. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hammond, Re Hammond v Treharne
-
Heeney v Addy and Another
...the amendment now, but in the view we take no amendment is necessary. Boyd, J., concurred. j. c. w. (1) Before Gibson and Boyd, JJ. (1) 5 Bing. (N.C.) 425. (2) 10 Q. B. D. (1) 10 Q. B. D. 30. (1) 26 Ch. D. 700. (2) [1901] 2 Ir. R. 465. ...
-
Borrowes v Delaney
...Breslauer v. BarwickUNK 36 L. T. (N. S.) 52. Bolton v. BarryUNK 12 L. R. Ir. 158. Lucker v. Dennis 7 Ch. Div. 227. Sanderson v. Piper 5 Bing. N. c. 425. Chapman v. Beecham 3 Gale & Davison, 71. Bolton v. BarryUNK 12 L. R. Ir. 158; afterwards affirmed on appeal. Wilson v. SmythDLTR 23 Ir. L.......
-
The Queen v Johnston
...of Crim. Appeal. THE QUEEN and JOHNSTON. Saunderson v. PiperENR 5 Bing. N. C. 425. Rex v. Sheppard R. & Ry. 169. Elliott's caseUNK 2 East, P. C. 951. Young v. GroteENR 4 Bing. 253. Rex v. Teague R. & Ry. 33. COMMON LAW REPORTS. 641 T. T. 1851. Court of Crim. Appeal. COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL......