De Tastet and Others v Baring and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 March 1809 |
| Date | 10 March 1809 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1083
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Subsequent proceeding with annotation, 11 East, 265
[65] Friday, March 10, 1809. de tastet and othebs v. baring and others (Bills of exchange upon Lisbon were indorsed by A. to B. in this country, and afterwards by B. to C. a merchant at Lisbon. When the bills became due, Lisbon was in the hands of the French, and they were dishonoured. C. re-drew upon B. in London, but B. did not honour the re-drafts. It did not appear clearly whether at that time there was an established course of exchange between Lisbon and London. In an action by B. against A. upon the bills, the plaintiff's claim to re-exchange was disallowed by the ]ury, and the Court afterwards refused to set aside the verdict upon that ground.) [Subsequent proceedings with annotation, 11 East, 265 ] This was an action by the indorsees against the indorsers of two bills of exchange, drawn in London by J. Hodgson upon Joze Lmz da Silva at Lisbon, each for the sum of 2220 mil, 767 reis, and falling due, the one the 30th of November, the other the 30th of December, 1807. It was admitted, that the defendants were liable as indorsers of these bills, and that the plaintiffs as indorsees had been paid principal, interest, and all charges, except le-exchange. The question between the parties was, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recover any and what re-exchange on both or either of the biSs? Om the 7th of April 1807, a few days after purchasing these bills from the defendants, the plaintiffs indorsed them and remitted them to Messrs. Jerommo Rebexro, Neaves, and Co. at Lisbon, by whom they were presented for payment. Before either of them became due the French had taken possession of Lisbon, and the English were excluded from Portugal. However, Messrs. Jerommo Rebeiro, Neaves, and Co. re-drew upon the plaintiffs in respect of the bills in question ; one redraft being dated 24th December, 1807, and the other 30th January, 1808, Both were [66] drawn at the exchange of 68,-the bills having been negotiated in this country at 62,-thus making a difference of 6d. per milrei (a). When the re-drafts amved in London, they were dishonoured by the plaintiffs. Garrow for the defendants contended, that Portugal being an enemy's country at * Vide Basten v. Butter, 1 East, 479 ; Fisher v. Satnuda^ ante, vol. i. p. 190. (a) Sum paid defendants for the bills, 1147, 8s. Sum demanded...
To continue reading
Request your trial