Steers against Lashley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 315
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS.
Subsequent proceedings, 6 T R. 61.
1ESP. 1W. STEERS V. LASHLEY 315 [166] Same day. steers against lashley. (Where a broker pays money on account of illegal stock-jobbing transactions for his principal, and the principal pays him the money so advanced, by a bill of exchange, an indorsee who knows the consideration of the bill cannot recover on it. A party, by agreeing to refer the quantum of a demand to arbitration, does not thereby waive any objection to the illegality of it, in case he is sued for the aum awarded to be due ) [Subsequent proceedings, 6 T R. 61.] Assumpsrt on a bill of exchange by the plaintiff as indorsee, against the defendant, aa the acceptor. The case in evidence at the trial was, that the defendant having been engaged in many stock-jobbing transactions, had employed a person of the name of Wilson as his broker , Wilson had paid the differences with his own money , but some disputes as to the amount of what he had paid having arisen between him and the defendant, they had agreed to refer the matter to arbitration, and the plaintiff, together with two other persons, had been appointed arbitrators They undertook the arbitration, and awarded a sum of £306, 12s 6d. to be due by the defendant to Wilson ; this sum was to be paid by bills at different dates, one for £100, part of the above sum, was drawn by Wilson on the defendant, and he had accepted it, Wilson indorsed the bill to Steers the plaintiff, and upon it the present action was brought. On the part of the defendant it was objected, that the plaintiff could not maintain this action ; that the bill having been given for a consideration, which was contrary to law, and that known to the plaintiff, he having been the arbitrator who had awarded that the money was due by the defendant, that he could not maintain an action for it. [167] It was answered by Erskine for the defendant, that under the authority of the case of Fawkney v. Reynous, 4 Burr. 2609, which had been adopted in the recent case of Petne v. Hannay, 3 Term Rep 418, that though the claim might arise out of an illegal transaction in the stocks, if the party bringing the action had no concern himself in the transaction, that he could maintain an action on it ; and upon the principle of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCallan v Mortimer
...(11 East, 300): paying differences contrary to the provisions of 7 Geo. 2, c. 8 ; Broivn v. Turner (7 T. R. 630) ; Steers v. Lushley (6 T. R. 61): payment of a sum of money for the purchase of the command of a ship in the service of the East India Company; Iflachfard v. Preston (8 T. R. 89)......
-
Faith and Others v Pearson
...3 T. R. 418 ; Biggs v. Lawrence, 3 T. R. 454 ; Olugas v. Penaluna, 4 T. R. 466 ; Waymel v. Reed, 5 T. R. 597 ; [110] Steers v. Lash&y, 6 T. R. 61 ; Booth v. Hodson, 6 T. R. 405 ; Mitchell v. Cockburne, 1 H Black. 379, and the cases cited above. The following is an abstract of the Act of Par......
-
William Day v Stuart
...purposes, may be available in the hands of an indorsee without notice.] [110] That was a case on the gaming law. But in Steers v. Lashley (6 T. R. 61), stock-jobbing was decided to be a good defence even against a bona fide holder. TlNDAL C. J. I am not aware that, if the cause were heard a......
-
Webb v Brooke
...might lend it to the Defendant for this ransom : would that contract have been void I Where is the illegality to stop? Steers v. Lashley, 6 T. R 61, where it was held a good defence to a bill of exchange, accepted by the Defendant, that it was originally created to pay the very differences ......