References: [1863] EngR 154, (1863) 13 CB NS 543, (1863) 143 ER 215, (1863) 1 New Rep 280, (1863) LJCP 121, (1863) 7 LT 712
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Willes J
Three parties including the defendant had drawn bills against each other, which bills came to the plaintiff as bona fide holder for value indorsee. Various sums had been paid on account, and the plaintiff sued the defendant but giving him credit only for the sums he had paid, saying that any excess would be held for the use of the drawers. The defendant offered to pay the sums he owed and the balance outsanding under all the bills, but no more, and paid that sum into court.
Held: Though the bills were not accomodation bills as such, the defendant could not be called on to pay the sum already paid again.
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Hirachand Punamchand -v- Temple CA ([1911] 2 KB 11, [1911] 2 KB 330)
The defendant, a British army officer in India, had given a promissory note to the plaintiff moneylenders. Unable to pay, he suggested they apply to his father, Sir Richard Temple. In reply, Sir Richard Temple’s solicitors wrote saying they were . .