Sibree v Tripp
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 January 1846 |
| Date | 16 January 1846 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 153 E.R. 745
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 15 L. J. Ex. 318. Followed, Goddard v. O'Brien, 1882, 9 Q. B. D. 37. Explained, Foakes v. Beer, 1884, 9 A. C. 605. Referred to, Bidder v. Bridges, 1887, 37 Ch. D. 414.
sibree . tripp. Jan. L5, 1G, 1846.-The plaintiff deposited with the defendant the sum of 500 for the purpose of a speculation in foreign stock, and the defendant signed the following memorandum:-"Bristol, August 14, 1843. e Memorandum. Mr. S. has this clay deposited with me 500, on the sale of 10,300, 31. per Cent. Spanish, to be returned on demand :" Held, that this was not a promissory note, and did not require a stamp as such.-To an action for : 1000 money had and received, arid 1000 clue on an account stated, the defendant pleaded, as to 500, parcel of the sum in those two counts mentioned, that the account was stated of and concerning the said sum of 500, parcel &c., in the first count mentioned, and no other; that, after the said causes of action arose, the plaintiff commenced, in the Tolzey Court of Bristol, an action of debt for the recovery of the said sums of 500 and 500; that the defendant disputed the said supposed debt, and denied that he owed or was liable to pay it, or that the plaintiff' could recover it; aucl thereupon, to terminate the said dispute and difference, and the claim and demand of the plaintiff in the said action, and finally to determine the same, the plaintiff and defendant agreed that the said action should be settled by the defendant making and delivering to the plaintiff three promissory notes, for payment to the plaintiff, or order, of the sums of 125, 125, and 50, and that the plaintiff should accept and receive the same in satisfaction and discharge of the said sums of 500 and 500, and all damages arid costs, and that the plaintiff should discontinue the said action. Averment, that the defendant made and delivered to the plaintiff the said three promissory Ex. Div. ix.-24* SIBREE V. TEUPP 15M. &W. 24. notes, and that the plaintiff accepted the same in full satisfaction and discharge of the said sums of 500 and 500, and the damages and costs, &c. The replication denied the making of the agreement stated in the plea.-The defendant proved, in support of this plea, that the plaintiff had sued him in the Tolzoy Court for the 500, when it was agreed between them that the defendant should give, in settlement of the action, three promissory notes, two for 125 each, and one for 50, payable to the plaintiff or his order, which he did ; and the following memorandum was then endorsed by the plaintiff's attorney on the writ served in that action :-"This action is settled by the defendant giving three promissory notes, viz. one at three months, 125; one at four months, 125; and one at twelve months, 50; upon payment of which, I undertake to deliver to F. S., Esq., [the defendant's attorney], the several papers in my possession in reference to this action. J. P. H." The defendant paid the two notes foi-125 each when due, but refused payment of the note for 50 :-Held, first, that the above plea was a good answer to the action in point of law; for that the acceptance of a negotiable security may be in law a satisfaction of a debt of a ; greater mnourit.-Secondly, that the plea was proved by the giving of the promissory notes in pursuance of the agreement, and that it was not necessary to shew that they were all paid at maturity. [S. C. 15 L. J. Ex. 318. Followed, Goddard v. O'Brien, 1882, 9 Q. B. D. 37. Explained, Foukes v. Beer, 1884, 9 A. C. 605. Referred to, Bidder v. Bridyes, 1887, 37 Ch. D. 414.] Assumpsit, The first count was upon a promissory note for 50 ; the second and third counts were for money [24] had and received, and on an account stated, the sum laid in each of them being 1000. The defendant pleaded (with non assumpsit and other pleas), fifthly, as to the sutii of 500, parcel of the sum in the second and last counts mentioned, that the account stated in the last count was stated of and concerning the said sum of 500, parcel &c., in the said second count mentioned, and no other; that, after the said causes of action as aforesaid arose, the plaintiff commenced, in the Tolzey Court of Bristol, an action of debt against the defendant, for the recovery of the said sums of 500 and 500; that the defendant disputed the said supposed debt, and denied thut he owed or was liable to pay the same, or that the. plaintiff could recover it; and thereupon, to terminate the said dispute and difference, and the claim and demand of tha plaintiff in the said debt and action, and finally to determine the said action, the plaintiff and defendant agreed that the said action should be settled by tue defendant making and delivering to the plaintiff three promissory notes in writing, by which tha defendant should promise to pay to the plaintiff, or order, the sums of 125, 125, and 50 respectively, and that the plaintiff should accept and receive the same in full satisfaction and discharge of the said sums of 500 and 500, and all damages and costs, and that the plaintiff should discontinue the said action. Averment, that the defendant made and delivered to the plaintiff' the said three promissory notes, and that the plaintiff accepted the same in full satisfaction and discharge of the said snips of 500 and 500, and the damages and costs, &c. Verification. Replication, that no such agreement was ever made modo et forma, &c.; on which issue was joined. At the trial, before Pollock, C. B., at the London sittings after last Trinity Term, it appeared that this action was brought to recover the sum of 50 clue upon a promissory note, and also the sum of 500, which had, in August, 1843, been deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant for [25] the purpose of a speculation in Spanish stock, At the time of the deposit, the following memorandum was given by tha defendant;to the plaintiff: "Bristol, August 14th, 1843. ; " Memorandum. Mr. Sibree has this day deposited with me 500, on the sale of 10,300, 31. per cent. Spanish, to he returned on demand. " james T. tro-p." On this document being tendered in evidence, stamped with an agreement stamp, it was objected for the defendant that it amounted to a promissory note, and required llJM.aW.a8. SIBREE V. TRIFP 747 u stamp accordingly. The Lord Chief Baron overruled the objection, and received the paper in evidence. The defendant then proved, in support of his plea, that an action had been brought against him by the plaintiff in the Tolzey Court at Bristol, for the recovery of the sum of 500; when it was agreed between them that the defendant should give, in settlement of the action, three promissory notes, two for 125 each, and the third for 50, payable to the plaintiff or his order, wbich he accordingly did ; and the following agreement was thereupon indorsed by Mr. Hinton, the plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D & C Builders Ltd v Rees
...of the account — and satisfaction when they accepted the cheque for £300 and it was duly honoured. The defendant relies on the cases of Sibree v. Tripp (1846) 15 Meeson & Welsby, p. 24, and Goddard v. O'Brien (1882) 9 Queen's Bench Division, p. 37, as authorities in his 7This case is of som......
- Gooi Seang Tuck v Tan Peng Loon and Another
-
Fisher v Provincial Bank of Ireland
... ... The intention inferred from the circumstances of the transaction is material: Sibree v. Tripp ( 3 ); The Mortgage Insurance Corporation Case ( 4 ). If the paper was a promissory note, it must have borne an impressed stamp before it ... ...
-
Lam Fung Ying v Ho Tung Sing And Another
...the performance of that promise, the original cause of action is discharged from the date when the promise is made : Sibree V. Tripp (1846) 15 M & W 23; Hall V. Flockton (1851) 16 Q.B. 1039 (Ex. Ch.); Evans V. Porris (1847) 1 Ex. 40. In British Russian Gazette & Trade outlook, Ltd. V. Assoc......
-
Consideration and Form
...immediate payment but the advantage of having the defendant remain as a licensee and continue to occupy the plaintiff’s premises. 217 (1846), 15 M & W 23, 153 ER 745 (Ex Ch). Consideration and Form 281 be different, the one sum may be a satisfaction of the other. . . . If for money you give......