HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0556 and id is 1 raw text is: I CAMP. 83.
MASHITER V. BULLER
885
of its having been regularly drawn ; and in such action it is unnecessary to
prove that the drawers had notice of the bill being dishonoured.)
[Subsequent proceedings, p. 180d, post.]
This was an action against the drawers of a bill of exchange for £461, 3s. at the
suit of the payee.
The bill purported to be drawn by one Wood, as the agent of George James, and
John Parker, upon John Parker. There was no proof that Wood had authority
from the defendants to draw the bill; but a witness swore that he, as the agent of
John Parker, the drawee, and one of the defendants, had accepted it on his account.
Lord Ellenborough held, that the bill having been accepted by order of one of
the defendants, this was sufficient evi-[83]-dence of its having been regularly
drawn ; and further, that the acceptor being likewise a drawer, there would be no
occasion for the plaintiff to prove that the defendants had received express notice
of the dishonour of the bill, as this must necessarily have been known to one of them,
and the knowledge of one was the knowledge of all.*'
Verdict for the plaintiff.
The Attorney-General and Espinasse for the plaintiff.
Topping, Marryat, and Holroyd for the defendants.
[Attornies, Rutherford and White.]
[84] Tuesday, Dec. 15, 1807.
MASHIER v. BUtLER AND ANOTHER.
(Although freight should be made payable by the shipper on the shipping of the
goods, it is not merely on that account earned without a performance of the
voyage.)
[('onsidered, Allison v. Bristol Marive Insurance Co., 1876, 1 App. Cas. 209.]
The plaintiff declared specially, that in consideration of his undertaking.to receive
on hoard his ship certain goods of the defendant, to be carried therein from London
to Lisbon, the defendant promised to pay him a certain sum of money on the ship-
ment of the goods. The declaration also contained counts on an executed con-
sideration, and indebitatus counts for freight, &c.
The ship sailed in January, 1807, with the goods on board ; but was lost in the
Downs. The plaintiff's counsel contended, that he had nevertheless a right to recover,
as there was a special contract between the parties, that freight should be paid on
the shipping of the goods, without any reference to the voyage being completed
and that the only duty incumbent on the ship to earn the freight here was, to use
her utmost endeavour to reach her port of destination.
The evidence of this supposed contract consisted of the bills of lading ; some of
which said the goods were to be delivered at Lisbon, freight for the said goods being
paid in London; and others, the shippers paying freight for the said goods in
London. But,
Lord Ellenborough held, that these words only meant that [85] the freight should
be paid in London instead of at Lisbon, and that they by no means dispensed with
the performance of the voyage. He added, that if the defendants had paid the
freight upon the shipment of the goods, they might have recovered every penny of
it back again.
Plaintiff nonsuited.*2
.1 Vide Wilkinson v. Lutwidqe, Stra. 648; Lambert v. Pack, Salk. 127; Lord
Raym. 443 ; Chitty on Bills, 286, 291 ; Peak. Law Ev. 220.
Jones and Another v. Radford, K. B. sittings after H. T. 46 Geo. III.-Action by
the indorsee against the acceptor of a bill of exchange, payable to two persons, of
the names of Hopkins and M'Michell. The bill had been indorsed by Hopkins, in
the name of himself and M'Michell, and defendant had accepted it with this indorse-
ment upon it. The defence was, that the payees were not partners, and that the
bill ought therefore to have been indorsed by both (Carmick v. Vickery, Doug. 653).
But Lord Ellenborough held, that the defendant having accepted the bill indorsed
by one for himself and the other, could not now dispute the regularity of this
indorsement.
*2 In Blakey v. Dixon, 2 Bos. and Pul. 321, the Court of C. P. were of opinion,
that an action may be brought for money agreed to be paid for receiving goods on](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0556&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)