Sutton against Toomer
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 November 1827 |
| Date | 13 November 1827 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 108 E.R. 778
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
sutton against ToOMEK. Tuesday, November 13th, 1827. A customer deposited a sum of money with a banker, and received a note, by which the banker promised to pay the principal at ten days' sight, with three per cent, interest to the day of acceptance. The banker paid interest on the note, but at the same time told the customer, that he would not, in future, pay more than two and a half per cent., and in his presence altered the terms of the note by striking out three and inserting two and a half: Held, first, that the word "acceptance"" meant sight, and that it need not be left with the mater for acceptance; secondly, that the payment of interest was evidence to shew that a principal sum was due, and that the note was admissible in evidence to shew the terms on which the deposit was made. [S. C. 1 Man. & Ey. 125. Referred to, Ashling v. Boon, [1891] 1 Ch. 572.] Assumpsit upon a promissory note, bearing date the 13th November 1813, by which the defendant promised to pay ten days after sight thereof to the plaintiff or order, the sum of 2501. with interest, at the rate Of two and a half per cent, per annum to the day of acceptance. Second count, on a similar note, payable with three per cent, interest. Counts for money lent, &c. Plea, non assumpsit. At the trial before Best C.J. at the Summer Assizes for the county of Hants 1827, the following appeared to be the facts of the case. In November 1813 the defendant carried on business as a banker at Southampton, in partnership with two persons, named Trim and Kellow. The plaintiff on the 23d November 1813 deposited 2501. at the bank, and at the same time received the note declared on, which purported to bear interest at the rate of .three per cent, per annum to the day of acceptance. The clerk to the bankers, who received the money, proved that the deposit was made on the terms contained in the note. In 1819 the defendant retired from the firm, and was succeeded by one Pritchard, who [417] continued the business in partnership with Trim and Kellow till 1823, when Trim died, and then with Kellow alone, who afterwards died insolvent. On the 14th of May 1825 the plaintiff demanded payment 7B.&C.118. MIMBURN V. OODD 779 of -the interest due on the note, and the same was paid up to November 1824, by desire of the defendant. But Pritehard then told tbe plaintiff that no more than two and a half percent, would be paid in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butler in Replevin v Bridge and Another
...6 B. & C. 542. Jenkins v. BlizardENR 1 Stark. 418. May v. SmithENR 1 Esp. 283. Huxley v. O'ConnorENR 8 C. & P. 204. Sutton v. ToomerENR 7 B. & C. 416. Parker v. DuboisENR 1 M. & W. 30. Hurnphreys v. BriantENR 4 C. & P. 157. Hutchinson v. Heyworth 1 P. & D. 266. Dover MaestaerENR 5 Esp. 92. ......
-
Leung Kin v Kam Wah Film Co (A Firm) And Others
...consideration ........" and cites in support, Brown v. Watts (1808) 1 Taunton 353, and invites the reader to compare Sutton v. Toomer (1827) 108 E.R. 778; Plimley v. Westley (1835) 2 Bingham's New Cases 249 and Gomperty v. Bartlett (1853) 2 E. & B. 849. These cases, neither separately, nor ......
-
Atkinson v Hawdon
...one of the original parties to the instrument, he was remitted to the debt in consideration of which it was given ; Sutton v. Toomer (7 B. & C. 416). It has, indeed, been decided that, in consequence of a bill being altered, the holder's remedy for his debt was altogether gone; Alderson v. ......
-
Houben v. Bank of Nova Scotia et al., (1970) 3 N.B.R.(2d) 366 (CoCt)
...the category. It is admitted that altering the rate of interest payable does so alter the bill: Sutton v. Toomer, 7 B. & C. 416, 108 E.R. 778, but it is argued that the legal effect of the altered note in the same as that of the note before alteration. Since Aldous v. Cornwell, L. R. 3 ......