Sheeman against Thompson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 May 1840 |
| Date | 14 May 1840 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 113 E.R. 704
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Referred to, Peakman v. Harrison, 1872, L. R. 14 Eq. 491.
[1027] easter vacation (a)2. sheerman against thompson. Thursday, May 14th, 1840. The drawer of a bill of exchange, accepted by defendant for a sum consisting partly of a debt from which he had been discharged under the Insolvent Debtors' Act, 7 G. 4, c. 57, and partly of a new debt, is entitled to recover on the bill as to amount of the new debt; therefore a plea of discharge under sect. 61 of that Act, as to the old debt, is no answer to the whole of a count on such a bill. [Referred to, Peakman v. Harrison, 1872, L. R. 14 Eq. 491.] Assumpsit by drawer against acceptor of a bill of exchange for 171., drawn 25th August 1838, payable to plaintiff's order three months after date. Plea, that before the commencement of the suit, and before defendant's discharge thereinafter mentioned, defendant, being indebted to plaintiff in 111. 14s. 6d., drew a bill of exchange on B. N. for that amount, payable to defendant's order, which was accepted by B. N., and indorsed to plaintiff, who received it on account of his said debt; that defendant was afterwards, to wit on 27th October 1837, duly discharged by an order of the Court for Relief of Insolvent Debtors, under stat. 7 G. 4, o. 57, of and from the said debt, and of and from all liability in respect of the last-mentioned bill, except as in the said Act mentioned, which order was still in force; that afterwards, to wit, on 25th August 1838, an account was taken between plaintiff and defendant of and concerning the said last-mentioned debt and bill, and of and concerning 11s. for interest thereon, and "of and concerning a certain other sum, to wit, 61. 10s., then alleged by the plaintiff to be due to him from the defendant for goods before then sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant at his request;" that upon such account, the same not being of and concerning any other demand than the above against defendant, defendant was found [1028] indebted to plaintiff in 181. 15s. 6d., which sum was made up of the three sums above-mentioned, and of no other consideration whatever. Averment, that the sum so found due was the consideration for the acceptance of the bill mentioned in the declaration, and that defendant accepted it for and in respect of the same debt, from part of which he had been so discharged as aforesaid, and that there never was, at any time...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barber v Fox
...J. 2 Bing. N. C. 635, 646, Shackell v. Rosier. 3 Scott, 59, S. C. See also 1 B. & Ad. 912, Rex v. Inhabitants of North Wingfield. 11 A. & E. 1027, Sheerman v. Thompson. 3 P. & D. 656, S. C.] Subject to these restrictions "any act of the plaintiff from which the defendant or a stranger deriv......
-
Kidson v Turner
...make the promise binding; Evans v. Williams (1 C, & M. 30), per Bramwell, B., iu Ambrose v. Cook ('2 H. & K. 73), SJieerman v Thompson (11 A. & E. 1027). A bond is equally within the mischief which the legislature intended to prevent, as a " contract, promise or agreement." The object of th......
-
Mahalm v M'Cullagh and Scottish Amicable Life Assurance Society
...18 Ch. Div. 464. Jackeman v. Cook 4 Ex. Div. 26 Ex parte Barrow 18 Ch. Div. 464 Bank of IrelandELR 12 App. Cas. 20. Sheerman v. Thompson 11 A. & E. 1027. Peakman v. HarrisonELR L.R. 14 Eq. 484. Arranging debtor — Promise to pay debt discharged by certificate — Corrupt agreement by creditor ......
-
Collins v Benton
...judge held that the bond is wholly void (voide en tout). And see Bac. Abr. tit. Conditions (K.), vol. i. 645, 5th and 6th editions. (d)* 11 A. & E. 1027, 3 P. & D. 656. In that case, Littledale J. says, "There might be some difficulty, indeed, if a bond were given as the new security." And ......