« PreviousContinue »
and delusive pretences, will not interfere in such case.
HOARE and Others against Cazenove and
Friday, Nov, 27th.
N an action by the indorsees of the bill of exchange The acceptors hereinafter set forth against the acceptors, the de- of exchange,
of a foreign bill claration contained the usual averments, (the 1st count who, after pre
sentment to the averring that the bill was presented for payment to the drawees for ac
refusal by them to accept, and protest for non-acceptance, accept the same for the honour of the first indorsers, are not liable on such acceptance, unless there has been a presentment of the bill to the drawees for payment, and a protest for non-payment. dd 2
drawees and refused, the 2d count omitting that averment,) and charged that the bill having been refused acceptance by the drawees, and being thereupon duly protested for non-acceptance, the defendants, having notice thereof, accepted the bill for the honour of the first indorsers. The defendants pleaded the general issue ; and at the trial before Lord Ellenborough, C. J. at Guildhall, after Hilary term 1811, a verdict was found for the plaintiffs for 8161. subject to the opinion of the Court on the following case :
The bill of exchange stated in the declaration was drawn by S. Hanbury at Hamburgh, on the 23d of July 1810, upon Penn and Hanbury of London, in favour of Quevremont Balleydier and Co., for 8001. sterling, at 130 days after date. It was specially indorsed by Quevremont Balleydier and Co, to Perier Freres: by them to F. Farmbacher, all of whom reside abroad; by F. Farmbacher to Greffuhle Freres and Co., who reside here; and by the latter to the plaintiffs, who are bankers in London. The first of the set of bills was transmitted, with the first special indorsement only, to the defendants to procure acceptance: and they accordingly presented it for acceptance to Penn and Hanbury, who refused; whereupon the defendants caused a protest to be duly made for non-acceptance. The second of the set of bills was afterwards transmitted, indorsed so as to pass the property to Greffuhle Freres and Co., with a reference upon the face of the bill to the defendants in case of need. Greffuhle Freres and Co. applied to the defendants for the first bill, and to know if it had been accepted : upon which the defendants delivered the first bill to them with the following acceptance by themselves; “accepted under protest for the honour of the
first indorsers." The bill became due on the 3d of December 1810, but was not presented to the drawees, Penn and Hanbury, for payment; nor was it proved to have been protested for non-payment. The defendants refused to pay the bill, in consequence of orders from the first indorsers. If the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, the verdict was to stand; if not, a nonsuit was to be entered. This case was argued in Michaelmas term 1811, by Scarlett for the plaintiffs, and Taddy for the defendants; and the Court reserved it for further consideration.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. on this day delivered the judgment. This was
an action founded upon a set of bills of exchange for 8001., accepted by the defendants for the honour of the first indorsers. The set was drawn by Samuel Hanbury, at Hamburgh, 23d July 1810, upon Penn and Hanbury of London, and was payable to Quevremont Ballydier and Co., at 130 days after date. The first of the set was transmitted to the defendants, that they might procure acceptance, but Penn and Hanbury refused to accept, and the defendants caused it to be protested for non-acceptance. The second of the set was indorsed to Greffuhle Freres and Co.; they applied to the defendants for the first, and the defendants delivered to them the first, accepted by themselves, for the honour of the first indorsers, that is to say, Quevremont Balleydier and Co. The bill became due the 3d of December 1810, but was not presented to Penn and Hanbury, the drawees, for payment, nor protested for non-payment. In the first count it was stated, contrary to the fact, that it was presented to the drawees
for payment, and refused : in the second count this
ment, is not
could not discover that any exception was taken to the va-
having been first protested likewise for non-acceptance,
writing for the honour of the drawer to pay the bill
upon return;" but this, “according to Pothier on Bills “ of Exchange, partie 1. cap. 4. Des Avals,” is a mode substituted by “recent usage in the place of a signature