Wright v Lord Maidstone
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 July 1855 |
| Date | 23 July 1855 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 69 E.R. 642
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 24 L. J. Ch. 623; 1 Jur. (N. S.) 1013; 3 W. R. 613.
Bill of Exchange. Destruction. Jurisdiction. Demurrer.
[701] wright v. lokd maidstone. , July 23, 1855. [S. C. 24 L. J. Ch. 623; 1 Jur. (N. S.) 1013; 3 W. E. 613.] Bill of Exchange. Destruction. Jurisdiction. Demurrer. Courts of Equity have never acquired jurisdiction to give relief on account of the destruction of a bill of exchange; but there is a complete remedy in such cases at law. This was a demurrer. The statements in the bill were as follows :- In the month of September 1853 the Plaintiff, Wright, agreed to discount for one Clark a bill of exchange for 1000, dated the 10th of September 1853, and drawn by the Honourable Francis Villiers upon, and accepted by, the Defendant, Lord Maidstone, payable to the order of Villiers three months after date, and which had been indorsed by Villiers to Clark; and accordingly the Plaintiff paid to Clark the amount of the said bill, less discount; and Clark thereupon indorsed and delivered the said bill to the Plaintiff. On the 3Qth of November 1853, shortly before the said bill of exchange became due, the Plaintiff, at the request of Clark, agreed to renew it for three months ; and thereupon Clark indorsed and delivered to the Plaintiff another bill of exchange for .1000, dated the 30th of November 1853, and drawn by Villiers upon and accepted by the Defendant, payable to the order of Villiers three months after date, and which had been indorsed to Clark by Villiers; [702] and, in consideration thereof, the (1) Per Erie, J., in Kernot v. Pittis, 2 E. & B. 419. (2) Per Patteson, J., in Grange v. Tricket,l& Jur. 289. IK. &J.703. .WRIGHT V. LORD MAIDSTONE -643 Plaintiff delivered up the said bill of exchange, dated the 10th of September 1853, to Clark; and such bill was cancelled or destroyed. On the 28th of February X854, shortly before the said bill of exchange, dated the 30th of November 1853, became due, the Plaintiff, at the request of Clark, agreed to renew it for three months; and thereupon Clark indorsed and delivered to the Plaintiff another bill of exchange for 1000, dated the 28th of February 1854, and drawn by Villiers upon and accepted by the Defendant, payable to the order of Villiers three months after date, and which had been indorsed to Clark by Villiers ; and, in consideration thereof, the Plaintiff delivered up the said bill of exchange, dated the 30th of November 1853, to Clark ; and such bill was cancelled or destroyed. The said bill of exchange, dated the 28th of February 1854, became due on the 31st of May 1854, when it was duly presented for payment, but was dishonoured; and the Plaintiff gave Clark and Villiers respectively notice of the dishonour thereof. The Plaintiff applied to the Defendant and requested him to pay the said last-mentioned bill of exchange, but he did not pay the same, or any part thereof, and ultimately the Plaintiff agreed to renew it; and thereupon the Defendant accepted another bill of exchange for 1000, dated the 17th of July 1854, drawn upon him by Villiers, and payable to the order of Villiers three months after date; and Villiers indorsed and delivered such bill of exchange to the Plaintiff, who, in consideration thereof, delivered up the said bill of exchange of the 28th of February'1854 to Villiers, by whom it was cancelled or destroyed. [703] Shortly before the said bill of exchange, dated the 17th of July 1854, became due, the Plaintiff, at the request of Villiers, agreed to renew it for three months; and thereupon Villiers indorsed and delivered to the Plaintiff another bill of exchange for 1000, dated the 20th of October 1854, and drawn by Villiers upon and accepted by the Defendant, payable to the order of Villiers three months after the date thereof; and, in consideration thereof, the Plaintiff delivered up the said bill of exchange of the 17th of July 1854 to Villiers, by whom it was cancelled or destroyed. Shortly before the said bill of exchange, dated the 20th of October 1854, became due, the Plaintiff, at the request of Villiers agreed to renew it for three months; and thereupon Villiers indorsed and delivered to the Plaintiff another bill of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walsh v The Dublin Port and Docks Board
...C. WALSH and THE DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD. chose in action: Athenum Co. v. Pooley 3D. & J. 24. Wright v. MaidstoneENR 1 K. & J. 701. Rolt v. WatsonENR 4 Bing. 273. Wain v. Bailey 10 A. & El. 616. Hopkins v. Worcester & Birmingham Canal ProprietorsELR L. R. 6 Eq. 437. Pardoe v. PriceENR 1......
-
Mƒ€™DONNELL v MURRAY
...811. Macartney v. GrahamENR 2 Sim. 285. Davies v. DoddENR 4 Price, 176. Cockell v. BridgemanENR 4 Beav. 499. Wright v. Lord MaidstoneENR 1 Kay & J. 701. Poole v. SmithENR Holt, 144. Bevan v. HillENR 2 Camp. 381. Davis v. DoddENR 4 Taunt. 602. Brown v. MessiterENR 3 M. & S. 281. Pooley v. Mi......
-
Edge v Bumford
...against the Defendant; Hansard v, Robinson (7 Barn. & Ores. 90); Catkins v. Monde (2 Jac. & Walk. 237, 242) ; Wright v. Lwd Maidstone (1 Kay & J. 701); Byles on Bills (p. 132); and see Uooke v. Darwin (18 Beav. 63). Mr. Follett and Mr. W. Morris, for the Defendant, were not heard. the maste......