Sowerby and Others v John Butcher
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1834 |
| Date | 01 January 1834 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 149 E.R. 802
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 4 Tyr. 320; 3 L. J. Ex. 80. Referred to, Easton v. Pratchett, 1835, 1 Cr. M. & R. 804; 2 C. & M. 542.
[368] sowekby and others v. john HuTCHEE. Exch. of Pleas. 1834.-A broker at N. shipped a cargo of coals, and drew a bill of exchange on the consignees in favour of the vendors. The bill being returned by the acceptor, in consequence of the shortness of the date, the vendors, by the direction of the broker, drew another bill at a longer date. It was taken to the broker's counting-house for signature, but the broker having left N. in consequence of embarrassments, the defendant, who had come there to investigate his affairs, at the request of the vendors, and for their convenience, signed the second bill generally :-Held, that he was personally liable on the bill. f [S. C. 4 Tyr. 320; 3 L. J. Ex. 80. Referred to, Eatton v. PratcheU, 1835, | I 1 Cr. M. & R. 804; 2 C. & M. 542.] | ! I Assumpsit on a bill of exchange, dated the 8th of March, 1832, for 961. 9s. Id., payable to the plaintiff's order, drawn by the defendant upon and accepted by ione William Devey. Plea-the general issue. At the trial, before Denman, C. .)., at the last Summer Assizes for the county of Northumberland, the defendant set up as a defence the want of consideration. To prove this, tie clerk of the plaintiff was called, who stated, that, in the latter end of February, 1832, the plaintiffs, who were owners of the \V aid ridge Colliery, near Newcastle, upon the application of Robert Butcher, the defendant's brother, a broker, at Newcastle, shipped a cargo of coals on board the " Isabella," consigned to Messrs. Devey of Rochester. Robert Butcher signed a bill for the amount of the cargo, which was forwarded to Messrs. Devey for acceptance; but the bill being drawn at too short a date, it was returned; and Robert Butcher desired the witness tjo send another bill at a proper date, drawn upon William Devey alone. The witness, having drawn the second bill, went to the counting-house of Robert Butcher, where \q saw the: defendant, who told him his brother had left Newcastle. The witness ihen asked [the defendant if he had any objection, as his brother was not there, to 4ign the bill, observing that it would be a convenience to the plaintiffs to get the bill signed. The defendant made no objection, but immediately signed the bill. The 2 C, fc:M.369. SOWERBY I'. BUTCHER 803 witness said, that he was not aware that the defendant hud any thing to do with the " Isabella's " cargo; that he had not communicated to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howard v Shaw
...1 Leo. 161. Barber v. FoxENR 2 Saund. 137, a. Coombs v. IngramUNK 4 D. & Ry. 210. Ridout v. Bristow 1 Tyr. 84. Sowerby v. ButcherENR 2 C. & M. 368; S. C. 4 Tyr. 320. Edwards v. BoughENR 11 M. & W. 641. Smith v. Homes 6 Law Times, 156. Longridge v. DarvilleENR 5 B. & Al. 177. Bidwell v. Catt......
-
Von Ziegler and Another v Superior Furniture Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd
...old and others more recent. In le Fevre v Lloyd, (1814) 128 E.R. 886; Leadbitter v Farrow, (1816) 105 E. R. B 1077; Sowerby v Butcher, (1834) 149 E.R. 802; The Ripon City, 1897 P. 226; and The Elmville, 1904 P. 319, the drawer of a bill who signed without qualifying his signature was held l......
-
Von Ziegler and Another v Superior Furniture Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd
...old and others more recent. In le Fevre v Lloyd, (1814) 128 E.R. 886; Leadbitter v Farrow, (1816) 105 E. R. B 1077; Sowerby v Butcher, (1834) 149 E.R. 802; The Ripon City, 1897 P. 226; and The Elmville, 1904 P. 319, the drawer of a bill who signed without qualifying his signature was held l......
-
Balfour and Another v The Official Manager of the Sea Fire Life Assurance Comapany
...to the plaintiffs from that other company. That was a perfectly good consideration. It is precisely like the case of Sowerby v. Butcher, 2 C. & M. 368. There, the defendant drew in favour of the plaintiff a bill which his brother ought to have drawn; and, though it was contended, that, as b......