Currie v Misa

Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153; (1875–76) LR 1 App Cas 554, is an English contract law case, which in the Exchequer Chamber contains a famous statement by Lush J giving the definition of consideration in English law. Lush J said,

A valuable consideration, in the sense of the law, may consist either in some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility, given, suffered, or undertaken by the other...[1]

Currie v Misa
CourtHouse of Lords
Full case nameCurrie v. Misa (or Misa v. Currie)
Citation(s)(1875-76) LR 1 App Cas 554
Case history
Prior action(s)(1875) LR 10 Ex 153
Case opinions
Lush J
Keywords
Consideration, Good faith, negotiable instruments

Facts

A company named Lizardi & Co, then in good credit in the City, sold four bills of exchange to Mr. Misa, drawn from a bank in Cadiz. Mr. Currie was the owner of the banking firm and the plaintiff bringing the action. The bills of exchange were sold on the 11th of February, and by the custom of the bill, brokers were to be paid for on the first foreign post-day following the day of the sale. That first day was the 14th of February. Lizardi & Co. was much in debt to his banking firm, and being pressed to reduce his balance, gave to the banker a draft or order on Mr. Misa for the amount of the four bills. This draft or order was dated on the 14th, though it was, in fact, written on the 13th, and then delivered to the banker. On the morning of the 14th, the manager of Misa's business gave a cheque for the amount of the order, which was then given up to him. Lizardi failed, and on the afternoon of the 14th the manager, learning that fact, stopped payment of the cheque.

Judgment

Exchequer Chamber

Lush J, Archibald J, Quain J held that the banker was entitled to recover its amount from Mr Misa. Lord Coleridge CJ dissented.

House of Lords

The House of Lords upheld the decision of the majority in the Exchequer Chamber. Lord Chelmsford gave the opinion, with which Lord Hatherley and Lord O'Hagan concurred.

See also

Notes
  1. Com. Dig. Action on the Case, Assumpsit, B. 1–15.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.