Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

POSTDATED CHEQUES.

It- is curious that since Forster *« Maekrelt (1867) no, reported case las arisen dotliug with tiro legal effect of postulated cheques. In that case, says the "Law journal," tho Court, of l',x-. chequer held, after much doubt, that a cheque given by a partner in a firm.of solicitors diiiod feoven flays Liter tliati tlie time when it .was actually delivered., could not m substance bo distinguished from n- bill of exchange, at seven days (Sate, and as tho partner liad no power to give bills, though lie liad full authority to draw cheques, 'his firm was. iiofc bound by the transaction, and could ivoti be sued on tho post-dated rheque. Tito rule} as laid down by Chief Baton Kejb\ was that "a. post-dated cheque is tflO same thing as 3. bill of excliaiigo at so roatiy day's' date as htterveno between tins day o'f delivering the cheque alid tlie dato niarked upon tlio cheque." Applying tliis rule, Mr- Justice Struuoli has now lieip that a c'hcmio giveil bV an infant somjb days before lw attained bra majority, though dated forward for presentation afterwards cannot bo sued OH even by a bona, fide holder for value, any iurire than could a bill of exebanfio given in similar. cirwiinstaiiees (HHtloy v. Peacock, October 25). In tins easff tJvo cheque was not- given for nccossarics; but even if it had been, it is doubtful if the indorsee cwiid have sued en it.. The provisions «f tho Infants Kolif>r Act 1874, are. eo sweeping that it lias licoi'i held that, oven ivhore a bill or note, has been given in respect of ■necossanes supplied, thcro u no liability upon UlO instrument, tfiOMsb thoro niay be upon the consideration: If tlie person v, to supplied tl.ro necessaries indorse* the in* siriimeut to another,. t3io latter cannot, sue nor present a I'wnkruptey petnwn nearest, the. infant founded on the deb., allewd to be due to him as nidovs.ee,' nor "can the foriivor succeed without ovideiice of tlie mi 11 ply of necessaries. (In re SolU-koff. 1591.) The legal doforces of infants tfio mauifcld, _ alitl. though thr-v aro often without ments. it is in' accordance ft'Hli th<a policy tlio law that they should prevail, anci t:ho rajsiii Q of them affords 110 crotmd, as Mr. justice Scrutton found 111 tho ctjse beforo hi 111, fer depriving tlio successful infant of lais casts.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19131229.2.65

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1943, 29 December 1913, Page 6

Word count
Tapeke kupu
397

POSTDATED CHEQUES. Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1943, 29 December 1913, Page 6

POSTDATED CHEQUES. Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1943, 29 December 1913, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert