Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/801

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
GIBSON v. MINET [1791]
II BROWN.


said Thomas Gibson and Joseph Johnson for their acceptance thereof; and the said Thomas Gibson and Joseph Johnson then and there, according to the usage and custom of merchants, accepted the same; they the said Thomas Gibson and Joseph Johnson then and there well knowing that no such person as John White, in the said bill of exchange named, existed; and that the name of John White, so indorsed on the said bill of exchange, was not the hand-writing of any person of that name by reason whereof, and by force of the usage and custom of merchants, the said Thomas Gibson and Joseph Johnson became liable to pay to the said Hughes and James Peter the said sum of money in the said bill of exchange contained, according to the tenor and effect of the said bill of exchange, and their acceptance thereof as aforesaid. And being so liable, they the said Thomas Gibson and Joseph Johnson afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, at London aforesaid, in the parish and ward aforesaid, undertook, and to the said Hughes and James Peter, then and there faithfully promised to pay to them, the said sum of money in the said bill of exchange contained, according to the tenor and effect of the said bill of exchange, and their acceptance thereof, as aforesaid. And whereas also, the said persons using trade and commerce as copartners, in the copartnership name and firm of Livesey, Hargreave, and company, on the said 18th day of February, in the said year of our Lord 1788, at Manchester, to wit, at London aforesaid, in the parish and ward aforesaid, according to the usage and custom of merchants; made their certain other bill of exchange in writing, the hand of one of the said copartners, on their joint account, and in their said copartnership namo and firm, to wit, Livesey, Hargreave, and company, being thereunto subscribed, bearing date the same day and year aforesaid, and then and there directed the said last-mentioned bill of exchange to the said Thomas Gibson and Joseph Johnson, by the names and description of Messrs. Gibson and Johnson, bankers, London; and thereby required the said Thomas Gibson and Joseph Johnson, three months after date, to pay to Mr. John White, or order, £721 5s. value received, with or without advice; they the said Livesey, Har-[50]-greave, and company, then and there well knowing that the said last named John White was not a person dealing with or known to the said Livesey, Hargreave, and company, and using the name of the said John White, in the same bill, as a nominal person only, and intending not to deliver the same to him, or to procure the same to be actually indorsed by him; upon which said last mentioned bill of exchange, afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, at London aforesaid, in the parish and ward aforesaid, a certain indorsement in writing was made, purporting to be the indorsement of John White, named in the same bill, and to be subscribed with his hand and name and which said last mentioned indorsement purported to require the said sum of money, in the same bill of exchange contained, to be paid to the said Livesey, Hargreave, and company, or their order; and the said last mentioned bill of exchange, being so indorsed as aforesaid, they the said persons using trade and commerce in the name and firm of Livesey, Hargreave, and company, as aforesaid, afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, at London aforesaid, in the parish and ward aforesaid, by a certain indorsement made upon the said last mentioned bill of exchange, and subscribed with the hand and name of one Absalom Goodrich, by procuration of the said Livesey, Hargreave, and company, according to the usage and custom of merchants, appointed the said sum of money in the said last mentioned bill of exchange contained, to be paid to the said Hughes and James Peter, and then and there delivered the said last mentioned bill of exchange, so indorsed as aforesaid, to the said Hughes and James Peter, without having delivered the same bill to the said John White, and without any actual indorsement or assignment of the same bill by the said John White, which said last mentioned bill of exchange, so indorsed as aforesaid, afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, at London aforesaid, in the parish and ward aforesaid, according to the usage and custom of merchants, was shewn and presented to the said Thomas Gibson and Joseph Johnson, for their acceptance thereof; and the said Thomas Gibson and Joseph Johnson, then and there well knowing that the said Livesey, Hargreave, and company, had made and delivered the same hill in manner aforesaid, and with such intention as aforesaid, and that the name of John White, indorsed upon the said last mentioned bill of exchange, was not the proper hand-writing

H.L. i.
785
50