Currie V Misa
   HOME

TheInfoList



OR:

''Currie v Misa'' (1875) LR 10 Ex 153; (1875–76) LR 1 App Cas 554, is an
English contract law English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the Industrial Revolution, it shares a heritage with countries ...
case, which in the Exchequer Chamber contains a famous statement by Lush J giving the definition of
consideration in English law Consideration is an English common law concept within the law of contract, and is a necessity for simple contracts (but not for special contracts by deed). The concept of consideration has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions, includ ...
. Lush J said,


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 11 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 14 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 John Duke Coleridge, 1st Baron Coleridge (3 December 1820 – 14 June 1894) was an English lawyer, judge and Liberal Party (UK), Liberal politician. He held the posts, in turn, of Solicitor-General for England, Attorney-General for England, Chi ...
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

*'' Balfour v. Balfour''


Notes

{{reflist, 2 English enforceability case law English consideration case law House of Lords cases 1875 in case law 1875 in British law