Williams and Others v Rawlinson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 May 1825 |
| Date | 11 May 1825 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 440
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 10 Moore, 362; 3 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 164. Not applied, In re Boys, 1870, L. R. 10 Eq. 470. Applied, In re Sherry, 1884, 25, Ch. D. 704.
[71] williams and others v. rawlinson. May 11, 1825. [S. C. 10 Moore, 362; 3 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 164. Not applied, In re Soys, 1870, L. R. 10 Eq. 470. Applied, In re Shen-y, 1884, 25 Ch. D. 704.] T. having a banking account with Plaintiffs, on which he was indebted to them 10,0001. ia 1822, Defendant then executed a bond, conditioned to secure Plaintiffs for any sums which for ten years Plaintiffs should advance on bills, &c. which T. should from time to time draw on them or make payable at their house, and all cheques, &a not exceeding 50001. in the whole. It was agreed that this bond should not affect a prior security given to Plaintiffs by T. in 1817; but no notice was given to Defendant by Plaintiffs that T, was indebted to them 10,0001. at the time the Defendant executed his bond ; T., however, saw the accounts every fortnight, and received the vouchers half-yearly.-At ths close of hia account, T. was indebted to the Plaintiffs more than 10,0001., but subsequently to the executing of the Defendant's bond tie had paid into the Plaintiffs bank more than 50001.:-Held, that the Defendant was liable to the extent of 50001.-Held, also, that the Defendant's bond did not require a 251. stamp. One Threlfall having a banking account with the Plaintiffs, bankers in London, and being indebted to them on that account 10,2471. 9s. Id., under a balance struck in January 1822, the Defendant and others then executed to the Plaintiffs a bond on a 91. stamp, in the penal sum of 10,0001., the recital to the condition of which boud stated, that the said John Threlfall had for some time past had a banking account with the obligees ; that the Defendant and others had agreed to join Threlfall iu the above bond, for the purposes and on the conditions thereunder written ; and that it had been expressly agreed between the above parties, that such bond should not in any wise prejudice or affect a certain bond bearing date the 29th day of November 1817, which was executed and given by the said John Threlfall and others to the above obligees, and their late partner William Moffatt the younger; but that all rights and remedies under or by virtue thereof, should remain in full force and effect; And the condition was, that if Threlfall, his heirs, executors, or administrators, should from time to time and at all times thereafter reimburse to the obligees or the 3 MHO. 78. WILLIAMS V. RAWLINSON 441 [72Jsurvivor;of them, and every other parson who should become partner with them in the banking business, their executors or administrators, all and every sum and sums of money, which the obligees or the survivor of them, or any partner in their banking-house, should within ten years thereof advance or pay, or be liable to advance or pay on account of accepting, indorsing, discounting, paying, or satisfying any bill or bills of exchange, drafts, notes,orders,or other engagements whatsoever, that the said Threlfall should from time to time draw orcause to be drawn on them, or make payable at their banking-house; and also all other sums of money which the obligees or the survivor of them, or any partner in their banking business, should lay out or advance or become liable to pay on the credit of Threlfall or on his account, and all such charges and allowances for advancing and paying such bill or bills, drafts, notes, acceptances, advances, payments, engagements, and accommodations, not exceeding the sum of 50001. in the whole, together with interest for such sum and sums of money as they or any of them should at any time within the period aforesaid be in advance on account of Threlfall, as is usually charged by bankers in such and the like cases ; and should from time to time and at all times within the period, and to the amount aforesaid, indemnify the obligees or the survivor of them, or any partner in their banking business, from all actions, suits, losses, costs, charges, expences, and demands which should be occasioned by their accepting, indorsing, discounting, paying, &c. for Threlfall as aforesaid, then the bond was to be void. In an action on this bond, the breach of condition suggested, was, that after the making of the bond in January 1822, and before the commencement of this suit, the Plaintiffs had advanced and paid, and were liable to [73] advance and pay a large sum, to wit, 20,0001. for accepting, indorsing, discounting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lord Arlington v Merricke
...does not, the payments must be treated as made in discharge of the earlier items. [1 Bing. 452, 461, 463, Simsm v. Cooke. 8 Moo. 588, S. C. 3 Bing. 71, 76, Williams v. Rmolinson. 10 Moo. 362, S. C. 5 Bing. 13, Field v. Can: 2 M. & P. 46, S. C. 1 Cr. & M. 33, Goddard v. Hodges. 1 M. & M. 40,......
-
Wythes v Labouchere
...Q. B. 593); Bodenham v. Purchas (2 B. & Aid. 39); Simson v. Ingham (2 B. & C. 65); Newmarch v. Clay (14 East, 239); Williams v. Rawlinson (3 Bing. 71); Clayton's case 1 Mer. 605). Judgment reserved. Jan. 31. the lord chancellor. In this case the Plaintiff seeks to obtain relief from a bond ......
-
Hollond v Teed
...347). A surety has no right to require the creditor to make any specific appropriation of his receipts or payments: Williams v. Bawlinson (3 Bing. 71), Kirby v. Duke of Marlborough (2 M. & S. 18); nor has he any right to require that the appropriation shall be made in the manner most benefi......
-
Batson and Others against Spearman
...General demurrer. W. H. Watson, for the plaintiff. This ia a continuing security; Williams v. SAD.&B.802, PEARSON V. ROGERS 1227 Rawlinson (3 Bing. 71. Ry. & Moo. 233). [Lord Deuraan C.J. We are satisfied this is a continuing guaranty. There ia no doubt.] [302] Wightman, contra. The replica......