Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/809

the parties, and the rule affords protection to the fair holders of bills of exchange against frauds, by which they might otherwise be injured; without which protection the currency of bills of exchange would be greatly obstructed, and great inconveniences would arise in commercial transactions. But it is objected, that the defendants in error make title to the bill, through the medium of a felony; supposing however the indorsement of the name of White to have been a felonious act, the present action was not brought against the person who committed the felony, or for the felonious act; and it has been decided, that the bona fide holder of a stolen bill of exchange might maintain an action upon the bill, though it had been negotiated to him through the hands of the person who stole it. In the present case, however, the question did not arise; for the verdict found no intent to defraud; and, consequently, no felony was found, nor could be intended.

After hearing counsel on this writ of error, the following questions were put to the judges:

1st, Whether the making the instrument declared upon, appeared upon the special verdict to be so criminal, that the policy of the law would not suffer an action to be founded upon such instrument? 2d, Whether upon the matter found in the special verdict, the bill mentioned in the 5th count could be deemed in law a bill payable to bearer? 3d, Whether the matter in the special verdict would sustain any other count in the declaration?

And the judges differing in opinion were heard seriatim, when Mr. Baron Thompson, Mr. Baron Perryn, Mr. Baron. Hotham, and Mr. Justice Gould delivered their opinions upon the 1st question in the negative, and upon the 2d and 3d in the affirmative. Mr. Justice Heath desired leave to decline giving any opinion upon the 1st question, as he was of opinion upon the 2d and 3d questions, that the plaintiffs below, the now defendants in error, ought not to recover upon any of the counts contained in the declaration; and the Lord Chief Baron having delivered his opinion upon all the three questions in the negative; it was thereupon ordered and adjudged, that the judgment given in the Court of King's Bench should be affirmed, and that the record should be remitted, etc. (MS. Jour. sub anno 1791. p. 218.)

In February 1666, Leonard Bennet mortgaged the rectory of Chipping-Wycomb, in the county of Bucks, to John Plummer, for securing £500 and interest; and, in February 1674, he made another mortgage of the same rectory to Henry Doble, for securing £640 and interest; and Doble afterwards advanced £400 more, to discharge some prior incumbrances.

In 1675, Doble exhibited his bill in Chancery against Plummer and Bennett; praying that he might be at liberty to redeem Plummer's mortgage, and that Bennett might redeem him, or stand foreclosed; and, soon afterwards, Plummer brought his bill against Doble and Bennett, that they might redeem him, or be foreclosed.

Both causes were heard on the 3d of May 1876, when it was referred to the Master to state what was due to Plummer, for principal, interest, and costs; and it was decreed, that Doble should be at liberty to redeem him on payment thereof; and that the Master should likewise state what was due to Doble for principal, interest, and costs; and, if Bennett did not pay Doble what should be so found due to him, together with what he should pay Plummer, then Bennet was to stand absolutely foreclosed.