R (Byrne) Bank of Ireland v Fisher

CourtHouse of Lords (Ireland)
Judgment Date01 January 1919
Date01 January 1919
Cork Improved Dwellings Company v. Barry

H. L.

Principal and surety - Conditional undertaking in writing to pay debt of another - Promissory note - Guarantee - Release of surety by giving of time to principal - Consent to giving of time.

The defendant, amongst other signatories, signed an instrument whereby, in consideration of the plaintiffs advancing to P. and R. the sum of £140, he, jointly and severally with the other signatories, undertook to pay the plaintiff the said sum, with the usual rate of bank interest, within six months from the date of the instrument. The plaintiffs subsequently advanced to P. and R. the sum agreed upon, taking from them promissory notes for the payment thereof, which notes were renewed from time to time without the express consent of the defendant.

Held by the House of Lords (1), affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ireland ([1918] 2 I. R. 521), that the instrument was a guarantee, that the plaintiffs had not discharged the onus of proving consent by the defendant to the giving of time to the principal debtors, and that the defendant was entitled to a direction at the trial.

Appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal (2).

The House of Lords (Lord Birkenhead C. and Lords Finlay, Atkinson, shaw of Dunfermline, and Parmoor) unanimously affirmed the decision of the majority of the Court of Appeal in Ireland, upon the ground that there was no evidence of assent by the respondent to the various renewals of the bills.

Counsel for the respondent were not called on.


To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Jiangsu Golden Civil Building Group (Hong Kong) Co Ltd v Chau Wa Kin
    • Hong Kong
    • High Court (Hong Kong)
    • 12 October 2006
    ...under his guarantee? 115. The burden being on the plaintiff to prove consent (see, for example, Provincial Bank of Ireland v Fisher [1919] 2 IR 249 HL, I turn to the evidence to see if it 116. There is nothing in writing to support the proposition that the defendant did consent, and no evid......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT