References: (1843) 6 Man & G 151, [1843] EngR 760 (B)
Links: Commonlii
P (the plaintiff) had drawn bills requiring WH to pay P a sum of money three months after date. WH accepted them, but to gain more time for WH, GH (the defendant) guaranteed payment of the bills. P pressed for payment. WH did ultimately pay P but was declared bankrupt. WH’s assignees in bankruptcy brought an action against P and obtained recovery of the sum paid as a fraudulent preference. P then sued GH on the guarantee. One defence of GH was that P had been paid and the debt discharged. GH contended that the judgment in favour of the assignees was not admissible to prove non-discharge of the debt.
Held: P was entitled to prove in the circumstances payment by WH had not discharged the debt, but GH was not a party to the assignee action. The matter was ordered to be retried as to whether there had been ‘a real and genuine payment of the bills by the bankrupt.’
This case cites:
- See Also – Cook And Others, Assignees Of Williams Hitchcock, A Bankrupt, -v- Pritchard ([1843] EngR 182, Commonlii, (1843) 5 Man & G 329, (1843) 134 ER 590)
. .
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Lloyds Bank Plc -v- Independent Insurance Co Ltd CA (Times 03-Dec-98, Bailii, [2000] 1 QB 110, [1998] EWCA Civ 1853)
The bank had made an electronic transfer of funds for a customer in satisfaction of that customer’s proper debt, but it was done under a mistake of fact as to the cleared status of funds received.
Held: The appeal was turned down. The bank was . .
