The Express. — 1847-02-19 (London, England)

JACKSON T. BIS AN.—PROMISSORT NOTE, WITH exALTERNATIVE MODE or PA V3IIINT.—MT. Q. C.,. and Mr. Ogle, appeared fur the plaintiff, and Mr. Serjeant, Shee, Mr. Edwin James, and Mr. Peacoeg, for the defendant. The action VAIS brought by the brother and adminia-, trator of a lady named Jackson, who committed suicide in' the month of August, 1844, to recover the amount of a pro-' misery note, made hr the def-ndant, dated the oth of June, 1843, and thus word d: " I premise to pay MOSS Jackson, ur Sir Gregory Lewin, upon her account, 0001. one month. after date, with interest at the rate of six per cent., value received." Sir Gregory Lewin died in the year 1845, and thss. note was found among his patters; but, although originly named as an executor by .liss Jackson, an appointment which had only been informally revoked, Sir Gregory Lewin bad renounced the executorship. For the defence; It was contended that the note was in law bad for informality, the mode of payment being in the alternative ; and th.st It had been, in fact, paid to Sir Gregory Lewin. Its evidence of the latter statement it was shown that Sir Gregory Lewin died so embarrassed that &creditor, and not a member of his family, had administered to his estate, and that the defendant h^d paid to him 340/. in a cheque, and had also I paid to him a promissory note for 3401. To account for the note sued on, and also a policy of insurance to secure it, remaining in the hands of Sir Gregory Lewin, the absence or the defendant from England and of Sir Gregory Lewin from London at certain times was alleged. In reply, it was contended that the defsndant had not paid Sir Gregory Lewin,' and that if he had, that payment was no satisfaction, because Sir Gregory Lewin was not tho executor of Miss Jackson, and his agency had expired with her life. After Lord Denman had commenced summing up it was inttneted that the counsel, in deference to a previous suggestion of the judge had settled the ewe by agreeing that the parties should 'dish!, the loss occasioned by the nonpayment to the plaintiff of the 800/. and interest, and that each of them should pay his own cosu.  COURT OF EXCHEQUER, pmt Parrs.—Before Sir P. Pollack WO a London (batmen Jury. PALL o. JoNr.s.—RsiLweva.—Mr. Q.O , and Mr. Mellor. conducted the plaintiff's case; Mr. Serjeant Allen and Mr. Gray for the defendant. This was an action to mover damages for the non-performance of a contract to transfer a certain interest or shares in the Leicester and Bradford Railway Company, which was formed in 154.5, and was since abandoned. After having passed a committee of the House of Commons, it was defeated in the Lords. It appeared that the defendant, who was an attorney in London, obtained an allotment of forty shares in this undertaking, through the instrumentality of Mr. George Pell, the solicitor of the company. When the time arrived for the payment of the deposits, the defendant stated his inability to take the shares, and the result was that Mr. G. Pell adleveed the necessary sum, and got the defendant's acceptance on the 13th July, 1845, as a security for the repayment of it. The defendant, who was then going to France, directed Mr. Pell to sell the shares " whenever they would realise 201. or 301." Accordingly, upon the 19th of Jul, the plaintiff, who is uncle to Mr. George Pell, purchased the shares at 11. pm. from a Mr. Stiller, manager of the Northampton Bank, where the letter of allotment and banker's receipt had been lodged for the purpose of effecting a sale of the defendant's interest. Upon the 28th of July (the shares basing risen in the interval to 41. er dl. premium) the defendant was apprised of the sale of his interest in the scheme. He said it way a pity the shares had not been hi ld over a little longer, but expressed himself perfectly satisfied, and promised to attend next morning at the offices of the company to execute the deeds, hand over the scrip, and close the transaction. Next day, however, ho refused to give the scrip, and altogether repudiated the authority to sell he had given Mr. George Pell, upon the ground that it 101 not in writing. The present action was commenced in June, 1846, and it was now contended, on behalf of the plaintiff, that he was entitled to recover the highest price the shares bed sold for at any time etir their sale and before the action was brought. For the defendant it was insisted on that he could not transfer his interest to the plaintiff. At most the alleged contract only amounted to a verbal sale of something that had no existence—there were no shares issued, And even if there were, by the 8 & 0 Vic., c. 16, the interest in them was confined to the subscribers "exclusively," and could not be transferred until after the act of parliament incorporating the company had passed. There could be no " shares " issued until after the act bad passed.—Tbe Lord Chief Baron reserved the points, and left the question of damages to the jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff.— Damages 50/.