Serle v Waterworth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1838 |
| Date | 01 January 1838 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 1321
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 6 Dowl. P. C. 684; 1 H. & H. 281; 7 L. J. Ex. 202; 2 Jur. 745: reversed in Exchequer Chamber, nomine Nelson v. Serle, p 795, post. Distinguished, Baker v. Walker, 1845, 14 M. & W. 468.
[9] serle v. waterwokth. Exch. of Pleas. 1838.-To a declaration in debt on a promissory note for 241., dated 3d January, 1837, made by the defendant, payable twelve months after date to the plaintiff, the defendant pleaded that one J. W., before and at his death, was indebted to the plaintiff in 241. for goods sold, which sum was due to the plaintiff at the time of the making of the promissory note in the declaration mentioned; that the plaintiff, after the death of J. W., applied to the defendant for payment; whereupon, in compliance with his request, the defendant, after the death of J. W., for and in respect of the debt so remaining clue to the plaintiff as aforesaid, and for no other consideration whatever, made and delivered the note to the plaintiff; and that J. W. died intestate, and that, at the time of the making and delivery of the note, no administration had been granted of his effects, nor was there any executor or executors of his estate, nor any person liable for the debt so remaining due to the plaintiff as aforesaid. Replication, de injurifi:-Held, after verdict for the defendant, that the plea was no answer to the declaration, inasmuch as it did not negative every consideration for the promissory note, for that it did not allege that there were no assets; and the effect of the giving of the note was, at all events, to preclude the plaintiff from suing the defendant, in case she should afterwards take out administration, for a year, which was a sufficient consideration for the giving of the note : and therefore that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment non obstante vercdicto.-The widow of a hair-dresser, who died in October I8:i0, continued to reside in his house and keep open the shop Ex. Div. vi.-42* 1322 HRRLE ? . WATERWORTH 4M.&W.10. (through which was the entrance to the house), but there whs no proof of any articles being sold. In December, she received notice of a, bond debt of L001. line from him, and had his goods valued. In January 1837, on the application of a creditor to whom he owed 241. for goods, she gave a promissory note for that amount, payable to the creditor twelve months after date. In March, she took out administration : Held, in an action against her on the promissory note, that this was not evidence to charge her as executrix de sou tort. [S. 0. 6 Dowl. P. C. G84 ; 1 H. & H. 281 ; 7 L. J. Ex. 202 ; 2 Jur. 745 : reversed in Exchequer Chamber, nomine Nt-ltou v. Serif,, p. 795, post. Distinguished, Baker v. Walker, 1845, 14 M. & YV. 468.] Debt on a promissory note for 241. Is. 4d., value received, dated the 3d of January, 1837, made by the defendant, payable twelve months after date to the plaintiff. There was also a count on an account stated. The defendant pleaded to the first count, that one Joseph YVaterworth, before and at the time of his death, to wit, On the 2d of January, 18,'J7, was indebted to the plaintiff in a certain sum of money, to wit, the sum of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Osborne v Rogers, Executor of Weston
...the deceased's property, providing necessaries for his children, and other acts of charity. Toller's Law of Executors, 3d edition, p. 41. [4 M. & W, 9, Serle v. Waterworth. Ibid. 378, Camden v. Fletcher.~\ 1 WMI. 8AUNB. 26S. TRIN. 22 CAK. II. REGIS 321 a real and personal estate together, t......
-
Balfour and Another v The Official Manager of the Sea Fire Life Assurance Comapany
...maker. Secus, if the original debtor is dead, and has no representative: Nelson v. Serle, 4 M. & W. 795, reversing Serle v. Waterworth, 4 M. & W. 9, 9 Dowl. P.,C. 684. But, if the note be payable immediately, it is conceived that the pre-existing debt of a stranger could not be a considerat......
-
Re Montgomery, A Bankrupt
...Abbott v. HendricksUNK 1 M. & G. 791. Gardiner v. Shannon 2 Sch. & Lef. 228. childs v. Monins 2 Bro. & B. 460. Sarle v. WaterworthENR 4 M. & W. 9. Nelson v SerleENR 4 M.& W. 795. Barnard v. Pumfrett 5 M. & Cr. 63. Executor de son tort — Appropriation of payments — Forbearance by credito......
-
Ex parte Buckley Re Clarke
...liable, [S. C. 14 L. J. Ex. 341.] Thei following case was sent by the Lord Chancellor for the opinion of the Court of Exchequer:- (a) |4 M. & W. 9. The judgment in that case was reversed on error, in Nelson v. Serle, id. 795, but the allegation that "there never was any other consideration ......