HAMILTON FINANCE COMPANY, LTD. v. COVERLEY WESTRAY WALBAUM & TOSETTI, LTD., AND PORTLAND FINANCE COMPANY, LTD.

[1969] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 53

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION(COMMERCIAL COURT)

Before Mr. Justice Mocatta

Bill of exchange - Stamp - Claim on dishonoured bills-Whether bills were properly stamped - Alternative claim by plaintiff holders for money bad and received and/or breach of alleged implied warranty-Whether bills admissible in evidence for any purpose whatever - Whether transactions involving purchase of bills were moneylending - Alleged non-presentation on due dates and/or failure to give proper notice of dishonour- Meaning of "in the same place"-Stamp Act, 1891, Sects. 14 (4), 38 as amended by Finance Act, 1961, Sect. 33-Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, Sects. 45, 46 (2), 49 (5), (12). Stamp Act, 1891-Bills of exchange-Whether bills were properly stamped - Whether bills not properly stamped admissible in evidence for any purpose whatever-Stamp Act. 1891, Sects. 14 (4), 38-Finance Act, 1961, Sect. 33. Evidence-Admissibility-Bills of exchange not properly stamped-Whether bills admissible for collateral purpose. Contract - Quasi-contract - Money had and received - Bills of exchange not properly stamped - Whether total failure of consideration. Moneylenders Act, 1927-Purchasing of bills of exchange-Whether bills security for money lent. Company-Officer-Due notice of dishonour in respect of bills of exchange-Director of plaintiff company (holders) also secretary of defendant company (indorsers) - Whether due notice in one capacity sufficient in other capacity-Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, Sect. 49 (5).