Skaife and Caris against Jackson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 November 1824 |
| Date | 09 November 1824 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 107 E.R. 790
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 5 D. & R. 290. Referred to, Lee v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, 1871, L. R. 6 Ch. 535.
skaife and cakis against jackson. Tuesday, November 9th, 1824. In assumpsit by two co-trustees for money had and received to their use, the defendant produced a receipt for the money given by one of the plaintiffs: Held, that this was not conclusive, and that evidence was properly admitted to shew that the giving of the receipt was a fraudulent transaction, and that the money had not been paid. fS. C. 5 D. & R. 290. Referred to, Lee v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, 1871, L. R. 6 Ch. 535.] Assumpsit for money had and received. Plea, the general issue. At the trial before Bayley J., at the last York Assizes, it appeared, that defendant had [422] received a sum of money belonging to the plaintiffs, as co-trustees. In answer, the defendant produced a receipt for the money, signed by Caris, and it was contended, that this estopped the plaintiffs from shewing that the money had not been paid over to them. The learned Judge held that the plaintiffs were not estopped, but gave the defendant leave to move to enter a nonsuit. Evidence being produced to shew that the giving the receipt was a fraudulent transaction, the plaintiffs obtained a verdict; and now Brougham moved for a rule nisi to enter a nonsuit. If the receipt was-obtained by fraud that might have been ground for an application to the equitable jurisdiction of the Court, to prevent its being set up as a defence; but as that was not done, evidence of fraud was not admissible at the trial as an answer to the receipt. If Caris had been the sole plaintiff the receipt would clearly have been an answer to the action ; Abner v. George (I Campb. 392); he could not set up his own fraud; and the same appears to be the case, where the party giving the receipt is interested jointly with another ; Henderson v. Wild (2 Campb. 561). Abbott C.J. I am of opinion that we ought not to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Veale v Warner
...those claiming through him, is not conclusive evidence, except as to the person who may have been induced by it to alter his condition. 3 B. & C. 421, Skaife v. Jackson. 5 D. & K. 290, S. C. 3 B. & Ad. 318, Graves v. Key. 9 A. & E. 641, Farrar v. Hutchinsm.] And it has been held that a rece......
-
Berkley against Watling, Nave and Crisp
...(b). But, generally, such an admission is not conclusive : even a receipt is not so; Graves v. Key (3 B. & Ad. 313), Skaife v. Jackson (3 B, & C. 421). [Lord Denman C.J. A receipt is not a negotiable instrument.] The negotiability could not make the bill of lading conclusive where the situa......
-
Jones and Others, Assignees of Luke Sykes and Thomas Bury against John Yates and John Young
...not give a valid receipt for money due to the estate, where the express dissent of the other assignee appeared. In Scaife v. Jackson (3 B. & C. 421), it was held that a receipt by one of two co-trustees was not conclusive, and that evidence was properly admitted to shew that the receipt was......
-
Graves against Key and Another
...was admissible to explain the receipts; Scholey v. Walmsley (1 Peake, N. P. C. 34), Lampm v. Corke(5 B. & A. 606), Skaife v. Jackson (3 B. & C. 421)); shewed that Tilleard paid the money and balance due to Webber, with a view of becoming the purchaser of the bill and note, and not as the ag......