Russell v Kitchen

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 26 January 1854
• Date: 26 January 1854
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Queenƒ€™s Bench.

RUSSELL

and

KITCHEN.

Ashley v. FisherUNK 12 Jur. 1051.

Brown v. HarrendenENR 4 T. R. 148.

Bentley v. Northhouse M. & Mal. 66.

Carr v. Shaw B. R. Hil. 39 G. 3.

De La Chaumette v. The Bank of EnglandENR 2 B. & Ad. 385.

Trimbey v. VignierENR 1 Bing. N. C. 151.

Brown v. Gracey 1 D. & R., N. P. Cas, 41 n.

COMMON LAW REPORTS. 613 H. T. 1854. Queen's Benehs, RUSSELL v. KITCHEN. Jan. 26. ASSIIMPSIT, on a promissory note.-The declaration averred that the note had been made at Capetown, Cape of Good Hope, on the 3rd of March 1850, for the sum of 170, and was payable to one William Pretchurch, or order, on the 3rd of September following, at No. 10 Strand-street, Capetown, and was indorsed by him to the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded the general issue. On the trial of the case before Pennefather, B., in last MichaelÂÂmas Term, in the Consolidated Nisi Prius Court, the plaintiff, who was the only witness, produced the note, and proved the handÂÂwriting of the defendant to it as maker, and also the handwriting of the indorsement ; and that the note had been indorsed to him for valuable consideration, before maturity, he being then a resiÂÂdent merchant at Capetown. He further proved a presentment by himself, at the place and on the day mentioned in the body of the note, and that by the custom of merchants at the Cape, the usual days of grace are not allowed. On the close of the plaintiff's case, Counsel for the defendant called for a nonsuit, on the ground that, inasmuch as the statute 9 G. 4, c. 24, whereby promissory notes were made in Ireland negoÂÂtiable securities, did not extend beyond the limits of that country, that no action could be maintained here by the indorsee against the maker of a note made and payable in another country, out of the jurisdiction, and especially where, as in the present case, the inÂÂdorsement had also been made out of the jurisdiction, the promisÂÂsory note being in such a case a mere chose in action, and not transferable out of this country : his Lordship refused to nonsuit, and directed a verdict for the plaintiff, reserving liberty for the defendant to move to have this verdict set aside, and a verdict entered for the defendant. Another objection was raised on the part of the defendant,- voL. 3. I8 L 614 COMMON LAW REPORTS. H. T. 1854. namely, that the plaintiff should have proved presentment at the Queen's Bench place specified in the body of the note, on the last of the days of...