Gray v Baker, Executor of Baker

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 07 June 1850
• Date: 07 June 1850
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Queen's Bench.

GRAY

and

BAKER, Executor of BAKER.

Fentum v. PocockENR 5 Taunt. 192.

Price v. EdmundsENR 10 B. & C. 578.

Harrison v. CourtouldENR 3 B. & Ad. 36.

Nicholls v. Norris Ibid, 41, note.

Ellis v. Galindo Doug. 250, note.

English v. DarleyUNK 2 B. & P. 62.

Bank of Ireland v. Beresford 6 Dow. P. C. 233.

Samuell v. HowarthENR 3 Mer. 277.

Ex parte Glendinning 1 Bucks. By. Cases, 117.

Laxton v. PeatENR 2 Camp. 185.

Philpott v. BryanENR 4 Bing. 717.

Claridge v. Dalton 4 M. & Sel. 226.

Carstairs v. RollestoneENR 5 Taunt. 550.

Bowmaker v. MooreENR 3 Prce, 214; S. C. 7 Price, 223.

E. T. 1850. Queen's Bench LORD 3IASSEREENE V. FINLAY. 506 CASES AT LAW. reduced to 450, then there is a renewal of the first offer, and on the 1st of April the solicitor of the plaintiff writes a letter accepting the contract for 500. If the plaintiff or his solicitor undertook to investigate the title, he now has no right to throw the expenses of so doing on the other party ; and in my judgment the evidence on that head ought not to have been withdrawn from the jury. CRAMPTON, J concurred. MOORE, J. I concur with my LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, and would even go further than his opinion intimates ; for I think there is a decided variance between the contract declared on and the one proved. It is laid in the declaration as an interest of a particular kind that was to be sold, and in evidence it is proved to be the sale of an absolute interest. Venire de novo. GRAY v. BAKER, Executor of BAKER. June 7. In an action AssuMPsIT, by the indorsee against the executor of the acceptor by indorsee against the of a bill of exchange. executor of it a an the acceptor To the declaration the defendant pleaded non-assumps, and of a bill of special plea, to the effect that the testator in his lifetime accepted exchange, the defendant the bill for the accommodation of the drawer, who was then and pleaded that the bill was there the real debtor, and did not receive any consideration or accepted for the accommo- value for so doing ; and that at the time when the drawer indorsed dation of the drawer, who the bill to the plaintiff, the plaintiff had notice that the acceptance indorsed it to plaintiff, who, was a mere accommodation acceptance by the testator, and that he at the time of the indorse- did not receive any value or consideration for the same, to wit; ment bad no tice it was an accommodation acceptance, and that after it became due the holder gave time to the drawer, and thereby...