Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Contract - From: 1200 To: 1799

This page lists 126 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.

 
Case XX 1 H 7, 14 5 E 4, 4 Averment, Faits, Audita Querela [1220] EngR 20; (1220-1623) Jenk 166; (1220) 145 ER 107 (D)
1220


Contract
A is bound to B in a single bill for payment of £100, te £100 is paid, and the bill delivered to A, and afterwards B by force takes it from A. B sues A upon this bill : this delivery and taling by force is not a plea in this suit ; for a writing sealed and delievered shall not be avoided by parol : where there is an obligation, or a bill it is good ab initio. An infant shall avoid his debt contracted during his ingancy : if it be not for necessary provisions, cloaths and schooling. Coverture shall avoid a deed : so of duress used to get an obligatory deed : so if a deed be read otherwise than it is, an illiterate or a blind man.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Case LIV 12 Jac 1 Keb 237 Hob 89, Bayle v Grid [1220] EngR 107; (1220-1623) Jenk 297; (1220) 145 ER 217 (A)
1220


Contract
A. assumes to B. to dye for him divers cloths severally, which amount to sixty cloths ; and B, promises to pay to A. a certain sum for each of those cloths ; A. avers that he has dyed the said cloths, amounting to fifty nine cloths for B. and has delivered them to him ; and that the sum due for them amouts to 191. which is not paid ; and for this A. brings his action ; upon non assumpsit pleaded, a verdict is found with the plaintiff ; he had judgtment, affirmed in error : for the mention of the said fifty-nine cloths was only superfluous, and a mis-summing ; the said cloths are sixty cloths, for the dying of sixty cloths was mentioned before. The judgment was, quod quer' recuperet, damages and costs pro detentione debiti praedicti ; whereas the better form had been, pro non praestatione assumptionis praedictae : yet good. Judged and affirmed in error.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Anon (1458) YB 37 Hen 6 p8 pl18
1458

Danvers and Moyle JJ
Contract
The plaintiff had taken the defendant's daughter in marriage, accepting the latter's offer to be paid 100 marks for the purpose. Held: A cause of action was disclosed. Although it was not on a contract, it was so in effect. There had been a quid pro quo. By the espousal, the plaintiff has discharged his part of the bargain, and should now be paid.


 
 The Abbot of Kilwinning v Andro Auchinleck; SCS 29-Nov-1533 - [1533] Mor 827

 
 The Lady Fleming v Lord Fleming; SCS 5-Apr-1555 - [1555] Mor 624

 
 David Thomsonr v William Chirnside; SCS 1-Mar-1558 - [1558] Mor 827
 
David M'Gill v Johne Laurestoun [1558] Mor 843
4 Jul 1558
SCS

Scotland, Contract
Gif ony man be maid assignay to ony actioun, assedatioun, or reversioun, and he agains quhome the samin is maid, befoir ony intimatioun thairof lauchfullie maid unto him, compone, transact, or agrie with the maker thairof, touching the contentis of the samin, and obtene his discharge, richt, or titil thairanent, he may not be callit or perseuit be the said assignay, be vertue of his assignation; but jure praeventionis is stoppit and secludit thairfra.
[ Bailii ]
 
Abbot of Kilwinning v Tenants [1561] Mor 3425
28 Feb 1561
SCS

Contract
A libel of deforcement was repelled, because a tenant against whom it was raised, alleged that he had made payment of the debt upon which the letters were raised, which was admitted to his probation.
[ Bailii ]

 
 James Wilkie v Margaret Maver; SCS 4-May-1562 - [1562] Mor 654
 
Perryman's Case [1572] EngR 284; (1572-1616) 5 Co Rep 84; (1572) 77 ER 181
1572


Contract

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Thoroughgood's case; Thoroughgood v Cole; Throwgood v Turnor, Moore (1584) 2 Co Rep 9 (b); (1584) 76 ER 408; (1584) KB 148
1584


Contract
Where a signatory is blind, and the document is read to him falsely either by the grantee or by a stranger, then the deed is not binding on him. An illiterate signatory need not execute the deed without it being read over to him, but where he executes it without asking it to be read for him, then the deed is binding on him. The decision was based on the reading of the deed "in other words than in truth it is."
1 Citers


 
Harris's Case [1584] Law Rep 7 Ch 587
1584

Mellish LJ
Contract

1 Citers



 
 Mackalzean v Mackalzean; SCS 1-Jun-1586 - [1586] Mor 854
 
Slingsby's Case (1587) 5 Co Rep 186
1587


Contract
Where two inconsistent provisions in a deed cannot be reconciled, the earlier provision prevails over the later.
1 Citers



 
 Dishington v L Lochnoris; SCS 1-Feb-1587 - [1587] Mor 840

 
 Dishington v Porteous; SCS 1-Dec-1589 - [1589] Mor 840
 
Butler v Baker's case (1591) 3 CoRep 25a
1591


Contract
The doctrine that a deed delivered in escrow operates from the time of delivery once the condition is fulfilled, does not operate as against a third party.
1 Citers



 
 L Sillartownhill v Prior of Blantyre; SCS 1-Mar-1593 - [1593] Mor 635
 
Jordan v Jordan 78 ER 616; (1594) Cro Eliz 369
1594


Contract
C gave a warrant to B to arrest A for an alleged debt. A promised B that, in return for not arresting him, he would pay the debt. Held: C failed in his action, on the ground, inter alia, that the promise had been made to B.

 
Hyde v The Dean and Canons of Windsor [1597] Cro Eliz 552
1597


Contract, Wills and Probate
Executors will not be liable for the non-performance of a contract where the services or performance to be provided by the deceased are personal.


 
 Slade's Case; 1598 - [1598] EngR 39; (1598) 4 Co Rep 92; (1598) 76 ER 1074; [1598] EngR 40; (1598) 4 Co Rep 91; (1598) 76 ER 1072
 
Perryman's case (1599) 5 Co Rep 846
1599


Contract
As between grantor and grantee, a deed delivered in escrow is to be regarded as a valid transaction which was effective to pass the title to the grantee as at the date of the escrow.
1 Cites



 
 Pinnel's Case, Penny v Core; CCP 1602 - (1602) 5 Co Rep 117 a; [1558-1774] All ER Rep 612; (1602) 77 ER 237; [1572] EngR 290; (1572-1616) 5 Co Rep 117; (1572) 77 ER 237
 
Whelpdale's Case (1604) 5 Co Rep 119; 77 ER 239
1604


Contract
Where a bond is delivered to somebody else to the use of the obligee, on being tendered is refused, the delivery of the deed was no longer effective, the obligee could not later agree to it, and the obligor could plead non est factum.
1 Citers


 
Countess of Rutland's Case (1604) 5 Co Rep 25
1604

Popham CJ
Contract
Popham CJ said: “it would be inconvenient, that matters in writing made by advice and on consideration, and which finally import the certain truth of the agreement of the parties should be controlled by averment of the parties to be proved by the uncertain testimony of slippery memory.”
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Herrles v Aslowen; SCS 1-Jun-1610 - [1610] Mor 257
 
Shulter's Case (1611) 12 Co Rep 90; 77 ER 1366
1611


Contract
Where a blind or illiterate person (here 115 years old) had a deed read over to him before it was signed, but he was mislead, he could plead non est factum.
1 Citers


 
Pigot's Case [1614] 11 Co Rep 266; [1572] EngR 180; (1572-1616) 11 Co Rep 26; (1572) 77 ER 1177
1614


Contract
A written contact may be avoided if somebody makes a material alteration to it after it has been signed and without his consent.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Lampleigh v Brathwait [1615] EWHC KB J17; (1615) Hobart 105; 80 ER 255
24 Mar 1615
KBD

Contract
B had been convicted of murder and was to be hung. L agreed to do what was in his power to obtain a pardon. He succeeded, and B then promised to pay him £100, but failed to do so, , and L now sought recovery. Held: He succeeded. Though the consideration had preceded the promise, the actions taken were at the defendant's request. "a meer voluntary curtesie will not have a consideration to uphold an assumpsit. But if that curtesie were moved by a suit or request of the party that gives the assumpsit, it will bind, for the promise, though it follows, yet it is not naked, but couples it self with the suit before, and the merits of the party procured by that suit, which is the difference."
[ Bailii ]
 
Everard v Herne (1628) Litt Rep 190; 124 ER 202
1628


Contract


 
Paradine v Jane [1647] EWHC KB J5; (1647) Aleyn 26; [1658] EngR 486; (1658) Sty 47; (1658) 82 ER 519 (C)
26 Mar 1647
KBD

Landlord and Tenant, Contract
The defendant tenant had had his house occupied by an invading army and he sought to be excused from paying rent. Held: "where the law creates a duty or charge, and the party is disabled to perform it without any default in him, and hath no remedy over, there the law will excuse him. As in the case of waste, if a house be destroyed by tempest, or by enemies, the lessee is excused." and "when the party by his own contract creates a duty or charge upon himself, he is bound to make it good, if he may, notwithstanding any accident by inevitable necessity, because he might have provided against it by his contract."
The performance of absolute promises is not excused by supervening impossibility of performance.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Commonlii ]

 
 Chambers v Hubberd; 1653 - [1653] EngR 428; (1653) Cro Eliz 882; (1653) 78 ER 1107 (A)
 
The Archbishop of York and Sedgwicks Case [1653] EngR 1933; (1653) Godb 201; (1653) 78 ER 122 (A)
1653


Contract

[ Commonlii ]
 
Sir William Drury's Case [1653] EngR 1796; (1653) Cro Eliz 14; (1653) 78 ER 280 (B)
1653


Contract
A release dated before, but made and delivered after an obligation, does not release the obligation.
[ Commonlii ]
 
John Harris, Executor of William Harris v Richard Ferrand [1660] EngR 162; (1655, 1656, 1657, 1658, 1659 and 1660) Hard 36; (1660) 145 ER 367 (B)
1660


Contract

[ Commonlii ]
 
Bourne v Mason 86 ER 5; (1669) 1 Ventr 6
1669


Contract
A party cannot sue under a contract entered into between others on the basis that he has not given consideration.

 
William Style v William Martin And Elizabeth His Wife, Relict And Administratrix of Richard Bosvile, Esq And Bosvile, Son And Heir of The Said Richard [1669] EngR 652; (1669) 1 Chan Cas 150; (1669) 22 ER 737 (B)
16 Dec 1669


Contract
Original Bill to set aside a Decree (on a Bill of Revivor) as obtained by Fraud, andc., and the now Plaintiff no Party.o set aside a Decree
[ Commonlii ]
 
John Hole v Christopher Harrison; Christopher Harrison v John Hole, Sir Thomas Player, Thomas Gilpin, Robert Jones, Thomas Tayler, And Anne His Wife [1673] EngR 61; (1673-1681) Fin H 203; (1673) 23 ER 111 (B)
1673


Contract
Two were bound in a recognizance, one was sued and paid the money, the other was decreed to pay half y contribution
[ Commonlii ]
 
Bryan v Rent And His Wife, Administratrix of Darrell, And Sir John Newton Baronet, and Others [1673] EngR 56; (1673) Fin H 3; (1673) 23 ER 2
1673


Contract
A Trial at Law directed whether a Judgment was satisfied.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Thomas v Sorrell; KBD 1674 - (1674) Vaughan 330; [1673] EWHC KB J85; 124 ER 1098-1113
 
Mayott v Gibbons [1676] EngR 346; (1676) 2 Rolle 165; (1676) 81 ER 727 (A)
1676


Contract

[ Commonlii ]
 
Huntingdon, Wells, Executors of John Tompkins v Mark Howes, and others [1677] EngR 46; (1677) Fin H 333; (1677) 23 ER 182 (C)
1677


Contract
An agreement for R. Purchase discharged, but with moderate Costs
[ Commonlii ]
 
Dutton v Poole (1678) 2 Lev 210; 83 ER 523
1678
KBD

Contract
A son made a promise to his father that, in return for his father not selling a wood, he would pay £1000 to his sister. The father refrained from selling the wood, but the son did not pay. It was held that the sister could sue, on the ground that the consideration and promise to the father may well have extended to her on account of the tie of blood between them. There was some disagreement in argument, on the grounds that the daughter was privy neither to the promise nor the consideration.
1 Citers


 
Dutton v Poole (1679) T Raym 302; 83 ER 156
1679
CEC

Contract
(Exchequer Chamber) Upheld
1 Cites



 
 Browning And Denham; 1685 - [1685] EngR 505; (1685) 3 Keb 786; (1685) 84 ER 1012 (A)
 
- And Clatch [1685] EngR 81; (1685) 3 Keb 708; (1685) 84 ER 965 (D)
1685


Contract, Litigation Practice
Debt on obligation of 600l. The defendant pleads that condition was to pay a less sum by a day, and that before the day he paied in satisfaction, which per Curiam is an ill plea, having not demanded oyer of the condition.
The plaintiff replied, demanding oyer that the condition was to pay a less sum by a day, and the defendant demurs without shewing that the money was paied at the day, which per Curiam is ill; and judgment must be against the plaintiff. Sed adjornatur.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Streeting And Hinde [1685] EngR 3075; (1685) 3 Keb 396; (1685) 84 ER 787 (B)
1685


Contract

[ Commonlii ]
 
Crosse v Gardner (1689) Carth 90
1689

Holt CJ
Contract
Holt CJ said: "an affirmation at the time of sale is a warranty, provided it appear on evidence to have been so intended."
1 Citers


 
Domina Holles v Wyse [1693] EngR 18; (1693) 2 Vern 289; (1693) 23 ER 787 (A)
9 May 1693


Contract
Interest reserved at 5 pounds per cent. but if not duly paid, then to answer interest at 6 pounds per ann. Great arrear of interest. Mortgagor decreed to pay but 5 pounds per cent., the reservation at 6 per cent. being only as a Nomine Poenae -But where interest was reserved at 6 pounds per cent, and if duly paid, then agreed to take 5 pounds interest not duly paid, and court allowed 26 per Gent. Ant. Case 131 ; post, Case 303.
The plaintiff lent the defendant money on a mortgage at 25 per cent., interest, but if not punctually paid (every six months, RL), then to answer interest at 6 pounds per cent per ann, There being a great arrear of interest, the question was, whether it should be computed after the rate of 5 or 6 pounds per cent.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Strode v Parker [1694] EngR 19; (1694) 2 Vern 316; (1694) 23 ER 804
27 Apr 1694


Contract

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
William Dolphin And Katharine His Wife v Francis Haynes [1697] EngR 29; [1697] Shower PC 17; (1697) 1 ER 12
1697
PC

Contract

[ Commonlii ]
 
Lester v Foxcroft (1701) Colles PC 108
1701


Contract
Entry into possession under agreement for lease and expenditure of money - Part performance
1 Citers


 
Leith v Garden (1703) Mor 865
1703


Contract, Scotland
Notice of assignment of contract - bad faith.
1 Citers


 
Charles Godolphin, Et Ux v Thomas Tudor [1704] EngR 36; (1704) 1 Bro PC 135; (1704) 1 ER 468
31 Jan 1704
PC

Contract

[ Commonlii ]
 
Sir James Gray, Baronet v James Duke of Hamilton, Charles Earl of Selkirk, and Captain Alexander Gavin [1709] UKHL Robertson - 1; (1709) Robertson 1
10 Mar 1709
HL

Scotland, Contract
An assignment of a bond, (both being executed in England and in the English form) intimated by letter only, is preferable to a posterior arrestment.
The judgment, finding that the law of Scotland should regulate this case, is reversed.
The Court having refused to allow holograph letters to be equivalent to an intimation - judgment also reversed.
[ Bailii ]
 
Duke of Hamilton and Uxor v Lord Mohun [1710] EngR 10; (1710) 1 P Wms 118; (1710) 24 ER 319
1710


Family, Contract
Husband before marriage covenants to release his wife's guardian of all accounts, not binding.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Mitchel v Reynolds; 1711 - [1711] EngR 38; (1711) 1 P Wms 181; (1711) 24 ER 347
 
William Habkin, Belt-Maker In Edinburgh v Roger Hog, Merchant In Edinburgh [1715] UKHL Robertson - 147; (1715) Robertson 147
19 Aug 1715
HL

Scotland, Contract
Annual Rent, Costs and Expences - two tradesmen having contracted to clothe a regiment, and to divide equally under a Denalty the sums to be received by virtue of an assignment of off-reckonings delivered to each of them : one of them afterwards receives a new assignment of off-reckonings, and a sum of money from the Treasury, and refusing to pay a balance due to the other, the Court ordained the person receiving the money, which, they found, fell under the first assignment, and their mutual contrail, to pay the balance due to the other, which however was restricted to a smaller sum than was claimed : but the Court having refused him damage and interest; upon appeal the judgment is reversed, and the respondent is ordered to pay to the appellant the principal sum found due to him, with the interest thereof, from the time the respondent received the remainder of the money; and the Court is ordered to cause the costs and expences of the appellant in the action to be taxed and ascertained and forthwith paid to him by the respondent.
No Specific sum being here awarded, proceedings afterwards upon the complaint of the appellant, relative to the taxing of his expences by the Court of Session, and resolutions and orders of committees and of the House there on a sum allowed to the complainant for his subsequent expences, in taxing costs.
[ Bailii ]
 
Katherine Lyon, Widow of John Lyon of Muiresk Esq v The Right Hon John Earl of Aboyne, An Infant, and Others [1715] UKHL Robertson - 154; (1715) Robertson 154
22 Aug 1715
HL

Contract
Costs and Expences - A person, having right to the balance of the price of an estate, which price was stipulated for in an agreement with penalty, obtains decrees in several different actions for principal and intereft; and in the last of these actions, insists for expences of all the former actions: the Court having found that in that action the expences of the others could not be allowed because there was probabilis causa litigandi, and since the did not insist for expences in her other actions; upon appeal the judgment is reversed, and the Court ordered to cause the cost and expences of all the actions to be taxed and paid to the appellant.
Subsequent proceedings of the House of Lords on two complaints by the appellant, that the Court had not taxed her costs; the House by a committee afterwards taxes the costs and expences of the Court of Session, and the expences of the said two complaints, and ordains the respondent (a minor), his tutors and curators, to pay 611 l 4 s. 4 .5 d. to the appellant for her costs and expences.
On the 3d of January 1667, Charles Earl of Aboyne, grand-father to the respondent Earl John, entered into articles of agreement with John Lyon of Muiresk, the appellant's late
[ Bailii ]
 
Sir Peter Fraser of Doors v Isabel Sandilands, Widow of William Black Esq [1719] UKHL Robertson - 209; (1719) Robertson 209
12 Jan 1719
HL

Scotland, Contract
Presumption - A person being sued in 1718 by the widow of one to whom, in 1697, he had granted a bond of pension for the consideration of managing the grantor's law affairs; though never demanded by the grantee during his life, the bond is supported and the money decerned for.
Holograph - Whether holograph or not being referred to the oath of the grantor of a bond, the term is circumduced against him for not deponing.
[ Bailii ]
 
James Blackwood, of London, Merchant v John Hamilton of Grange [1719] UKHL Robertson - 211; (1719) Robertson 211
26 Jan 1719
HL

Scotland, Contract
Tenor - The Court of Session having reduced a decree of proving the tenor of a bond, and an adjudication and decree of mails and duties following thereupon, for the reason that it was not proved who were the writer and witnesses: the judgment is, from the circumstances of the case, reversed, the reasons of reduction repelled, and the adjudication sustained.
Damage and Interest - The Court, in an interlocutor prior to those appealed from, having sustained the adjudication for the principal sum and interest, without all accumulation, penalties, and expences whatsoever, this latter part of their judgment is reversed.
[ Bailii ]
 
Katherine Stevenson, and Mr James Gillon, Advocate, Her Husband v Gilbert, Mary, and Eupham Fife, Children of Gilbert Fife Deceased, Late One of The Baillies of Edinburgh [1719] UKHL Robertson - 216; (1719) Robertson 216
20 Feb 1719
HL

Scotland, Contract
Heritable and moveable - A bond taken to a man and his wife in life-rent, and to their daughter in fee, and failing her by decease to the husband, his heirs, executors, or assignees; found to be moveable, that being but one substitution.
Tutor and Pupil - A tutor having taken a heritable bond, in corroboration of a personal one payable to the pupil and her issue, whom failing to three aunts, her nearest in kin nominatim; it is found that he acted warrantably.
Succession - The three aunts having neither confirmed nor served themselves heirs, but one or them, who survived, being according to the tenor of the said heritable bond entitled thereto, assigned the same; in a question between the assignees and the heir, who was then also nearest in kin or the deceased pupil, the assignation is supported.
[ Bailii ]
 
Grizel Lady Sempill, Widow of Colonel Richard Cuninghame Deceased v Alexander Murray of Broughton, Esq; Et e Contra [1720] UKHL Robertson - 282; (1720) Robertson 282
4 Mar 1720
HL

Scotland, Contract
Presumption - In 1691, a Colonel gives his Lieutenant Colonel a draft on his agent for 250 l. and also pays him 50 l. in cash, for which a receipt is granted: in a statement of all the officers' accounts in 1692, the Lieut. Col. takes no notice of the transaction in 1691, but mentions that he had received 75 l. 112 s. 8 d. on account of his pay, without stating from whom: in an action, after the death of the parties, in 1719, it is held that the draft for 250 l. was not presumed to have been paid by the drawee, unless it was otherwise instructed; but that the 50 l paid by the Colonel was not included in the 75 l. 12 s. 8 d. acknowledged to have been received by the Lieut. Col.
Writ - An objection made to a receipt between officers, that it was void, being neither holograph, nor having the solemnities required by the acts of parliament relative to the testing of writings, is not sustained.
Was a deed written and executed at Dublin valid, which bore to be "written by Edward Dudgeon, Gentleman?" see note at the end of this case.
[ Bailii ]
 
Theobald Butler v Sir Thomas Prendergast And Others [1720] EngR 49; (1720) 4 Bro PC 174; (1720) 2 ER 119
13 May 1720
PC

Equity, Contract
A. agreed with B. for the purchase of timber, and together with C. entered into a bond, that A. his executors and administrators, should not cut any timber under a particular size; but, A."s name was only made use of in this agreement for C. C. cuts down timber under the size stipulated; but as there could be no remedy against C. upon the bond, it was held to be a fraud upon B. the selleir, and therefore relievable in equity.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Thomas Fairholm of Piltoun v Sir William Cockburn, and Sir George Hamilton, Baronet [1720] UKHL Robertson - 317; (1720) Robertson 317
21 Jun 1720
HL

Contract
Mutual Contract - Personal and real - A creditor by adjudication, with an unexpired legal and without infeftment, enters into an agreement with two other creditors, by which he consents that they shall be paid before him; in a competition between a singular successor of the adjudger with notice, and the representatives of those two creditors, it is found that the preference in the contract was perpetual, and that as it concerned a personal subject on which no infeftment had followed, it was effectual against the singular successors of the contractors.
Fraud - A creditor pursuing a judicial sale, enters into a contract before the sale to sell to a third party at a certain sum; he afterwards, at the sale, purchases for a smaller sum, but is obliged to account for the larger sum, which had been paid to him on terms of the prior contract.
Bona fides - A purchaser at a judicial sale having paid a debt bona fide to creditors ranked before him; in accounting to creditors who were prior to both, has allowance of such bona fide payment; but action of repetition is reserved to the prior creditors.
[ Bailii ]
 
Thomas Rigge, of Mortoun, Esq; v Alexander Abercrombie, of Tullibodie, Esq; [1723] UKHL Robertson - 438; (1723) Robertson 438
18 Mar 1723
HL

Contract
Negotiorum Gestor - The respondent having sent money by the appellant, to be by a third person laid out in stock, in his own name; on the death of this third person the appellant could not warrantably lay out the respondent's money in stock, in his the appellant's name.
Proof - In this case the son of the person deceased, having by letter given the first notice of the transaction to the respondent, and mentioned that the appellant has informed the writer of the letter, that he had given the respondent his option to stand to the bargain or not, this letter is held to be proof of such option tendered.
[ Bailii ]
 
Colonel Francis Charteris, of Ampsfield v The Right Honourable James Earl of Hyndford [1724] UKHL Robertson - 471; (1724) Robertson 471
23 Mar 1724
HL

Contract
Usury - South Sea Company - During the rapid rising of South Sea stock, an agreement was entered into, on a Sunday, to sell a certain quantity of stock, at 90 per cent. above the price of the preceding day, the price not to be payable till a year after transfer of the stock; and an heritable bond was afterwards granted in consequence of the transfer, for payment of the agreed price on a day certain: this bond being reduced on the head of usury, the judgment is reversed.
Witness - In a reduction on the head of usury, a menial servant of the defender who was a subscribing witness to an agreement, being refused to be examined, the judgment is reversed.
The grantee in a bond having proposed to examine a cautioner therein as a witness, with regard to the transaction for which the bond was granted, consenting that what he deponed to should not be of prejudice to him, the Court refused to admit him, but the judgment is reversed.
Appeal - Interlocutors reversed, and an agreement adjudged of consent.
[ Bailii ]
 
Margaret, Agnes, Mary, Marion, and Janet Kennedies, Heirs Portioners of The Deceased Alexander Kennedy, of Glenour, Their Brother, and Their Respective Husbands for Their Interests v Alexander Macdowall, of Garthland [1724] UKHL Robertson - 488; (1724) Robertson 488
13 Apr 1724
HL

Scotland, Contract
Writ - A bond reduced as vitiated, where after the sum the word "Pounds" was written upon an erazure, and the penalty was in merks, effeiring to a fifth part of the principal if it had been merks, but not if pounds, as it stood on the bond as claimed on. This bond had been allowed, as it then stood, for a compensation in an action, between the father of the persons founding on it, and a third party, upwards of thirty years before, but was not then produced.
[ Bailii ]
 
Thomas Paterson, Esq v Archibald Ogilvie, and Anthony Murray, Esq [1724] UKHL Robertson - 499; (1724) Robertson 499
20 Apr 1724
HL

Contract
Process - Qualified Condescendance - In the reduction of a bond, bearing to be for money lent, for want of an onerous cause, the defender acknowledges that the consideration was the future transfer of South Sea stock, and states that such transfer was afterwards made accordingly to the pursuer's order. This quality in the condescendance did not prove against the pursuers.
[ Bailii ]
 
Everet v Williams (1893) 9 LQR 197
1725


Torts - Other, Contract
The Highwaymens Case - When the court was invited to take an account between two highwaymen, it not only dismissed the claim as "scandalous and impertinent" but ordered the arrest of the plaintiff's solicitor and fined him.
1 Citers


 
Volrath Tham, Merchant In Gottenburgh v Charles Sheriff, and Richard Sheriff [1725] UKHL Robertson - 534; (1725) Robertson 534
23 Apr 1725
HL

Scotland, Contract
Factor - A foreign factor advises his correspondents, that he has disposed of a cargo, and shipped returns for it, on both which he charges commission; he afterwards brings an action against the correspondents, alleging that he had lent his own goods, and had not received proceeds for theirs; but he is not allowed to prove facts contrary to his correspondence.
The knowledge of the ship-master, though Supercargo, and part owner, not relevant against the correspondence.
Proof - The factor having refused to allow a proof of the ship-master's knowledge by his own oath, a proof by witnesses is refused him.
[ Bailii ]
 
Beaumont v Weldon [1726] EngR 248; (1726) 2 Vent 155; (1726) 86 ER 364 (C)
1726


Contract
In an assumpsit the plaintiff declared upon several promises, three whereof were for finding of lodging for so many mouths for the wife of the plaintiff at his request, and the last promise was an indebitat. for goods and wares sold to the defendant himself.
[ Commonlii ]
 
William Morrison of Preston Grange, Esq v John Viscount Arbuthnot [1728] UKHL 1 - Paton - 7; (1728) 1 Paton 7
27 Mar 1728
HL

Contract, Children
Minor - pactum illicitum - A discharge by a minor without curators of part of the tocher stipulated in his contract of marriage, being granted privately before solemnization of the marriage, and without the concurrence of the friends who were assisting him in the marriage treaty, reduced at the instance of the granter, on the head of minority and lesion, and as being contra fidem tabularum nuptialium.
[ Bailii ]
 
Archibald Cutlar of Orolands v Alex Maxwell of Neulaw Et Alii [1731] UKHL 1 - Paton - 58; (1731) 1 Paton 58
30 Mar 1731
HL

Contract
Proof - presumption - Circumstances from which it was held, that the payment of a debt had been made by a cautioner, and not by the principal debtor.
[ Bailii ]
 
William Fullerton, Et Alii v David Kinloch [1740] UKHL 1 - Paton - 265; (1740) 1 Paton 265
13 Feb 1740
HL

Contract, Scotland
A simple contract debt incurred in England, though in that country not affecting the heir of the debtor, may be the ground of affecting his landed estate in Scotland.
[ Bailii ]
 
Flureau v Thornhill (1776) 2 Wm Bl 1078; 96 ER 635; [1746] EngR 175; (1746-1779) 2 Black W 1078; (1746) 96 ER 635
1746

Blackstone J, De Grey CJ
Land, Contract, Damages
A person who contracts to purchase land, but where the title is, without collusion, defective cannot claim for his loss of bargain. 'These contracts are merely upon condition, frequently expressed, but always implied, that the vendor has good title. If he has not, the return of the deposit with interest and costs, is all that can be expected.' 'Upon a contract for a purchase, if the title proves bad, and the vendor is, without fraud, incapable of making a good one, I do not think the pourchaser can be entitled to any damages for the fancied goodness of the bargain, which he supposes he has lost.'
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Salkeld v Vernon (1758) 1 Eden 64; [1758] 28 ER 608; [1758] EngR 153; (1758) 1 Eden 64; (1758) 28 ER 608
1758

Lord Keeper Henley
Contract
A party may, at any rate in a compromise agreement supported by valuable consideration, agree to release claims or rights of which he is unaware and of which he could not be aware, even claims which could not on the facts known to the parties have been imagined, if appropriate language is used to make plain that that is his intention, though "a release ex vi termini imports a knowledge in the releasor of what he releases, unless upon a particular and solemn composition for peace persons expressly agree to release uncertain demands."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Robert Anderson, Mason v James Anderson, Late of Crookhill [1759] UKHL 2 - Paton - 22
26 Feb 1759
HL

Land, Contract
Sale - Security for Price -
Circumstances in which held, where a purchaser did not find satisfactory security for payment of the price within the time specified in the minute of sale, though cautioners were offered, but rejected as insufficient, the seller was entitled to sell the property to another.
[ Bailii ]
 
Robinson v Bland (1760) 2 Burr 1077
1760

Wilmot J
International, Jurisdiction, Contract
The plaintiff brought an action on a bill of exchange given in Paris in payment of gaming debts. By English law the debt was unenforceable but the plaintiff alleged that in France the debt could be enforced in a Court of Honour. Held: Wilmot J: "I cannot help thinking, that where a person appeals to the law of England, he must take his remedy according to the law of England, to which he has appealed."
1 Citers



 
 Hamilton v Mendes; 8-Jun-1761 - 97 ER 787; (1761) 2 Burr 1198; [1761] EngR 56; (1761) 2 Burr 1198; (1761) 97 ER 787
 
Alexander Cunningham, Ws v Thomas Kinnear, Insurance Broker In Edinburgh, Alexander Brown and Son, Merchants, and William Hume, Merchant Upholsterer In Edinburgh [1765] UKHL 2 - Paton - 114; (1765) 2 Paton 114
27 Mar 1765
HL

Scotland, Contract
Partnership - Joint Adventure - Praepositus Negotiis.-
Where goods were purchased on individual account; and thereafter an interest purchased therein by another, as part of a cargo shipped for foreign trade; where also there was no contract, and no previous reputed partnership, anterior to the purchase of the goods shipped: Circumstances in which held, there was an existing copartnery, and that the deceased partner, in purchasing the goods, in ordering the insurances, and in receiving the returns, acted as pr positus negotiis of the company, and bound the other partners.
[ Bailii ]
 
Zouch, Ex Dimiss Abbot And Hallet v Parsons [1765] EngR 89; (1765) 3 Burr 1794; (1765) 97 ER 1103
23 Nov 1765

Lord Mansfield
Contract, Children
Lord Mansfield said that: "miserable must the condition of minors be; excluded from the society and commerce of the world; deprived of necessaries, education, employment, and many advantages; if they could do no binding acts. Great inconvenience must arise to others, if they were bound by no act. The law, therefore, at the same time that it protects their imbecility and indiscretion from injury through their own imprudence, enables them to do binding acts, for their own benefit; and, without prejudice to themselves, for the benefit of others."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Davis and Jordan v James (1770) 5 Burr 2680
1770


Contract

1 Citers


 
William Gray and William Stuart, Merchants, Perth v Alexander Ogilvie, Merchant, Leith [1770] UKHL 2 - Paton - 215
2 Mar 1770
HL

Contract
Sale.-
A bargain was entered into for the sale of 100 hogsheads of Philadelphia lintseed, of Messrs. Alexander's Importation, for which £4. 4s. per hogshead was agreed to be paid. Instead of this, the seller purchased himself Virginia lintseed of inferior quality, at £3. 10s. per hogshead, and sent it to the buyer as the Philadelphia lintseed which he had bargained for. Held, reversing the judgment of the Court of Session, that the buyer was not liable for the price.
[ Bailii ]
 
Irvine of Drum, Esq, and Guardians v George, Earl of Aberdeen, Duff of Coulter [1770] UKHL 2 - Paton - 249
2 Apr 1770
HL

Contract
Decret of Sale - Exclusive Title.-
When a decree of sale is impugned, as having been fraudulently obtained, held that production of such decree is not a sufficient title to exclude exhibition of other writs specially called for, as the grounds and warrants on which it proceeded, nor a bar to the action raised for restoration of an entailed estate sold for the entailer's debts; reversing the judgment of the Court of Session.
[ Bailii ]
 
Messrs Hastie and Jamieson, Merchants In Glasgow v Robert Arthur, Merchant In Irvine [1770] UKHL 2 - Paton - 251; (1770) 2 Paton 251
10 Apr 1770
HL

Contract
Sale - Bill of Lading.-
Its effect in transferring the property of the goods.
[ Bailii ]
 
Gardiner v Agnew 1771 M 3385
1771


Scotland, Contract
Two co-obligants in a bond and who who had paid the debt sought damages against the creditor who had refused an assignation. They alleged a breach of a duty grant the assignation sought. Held: the court found for the creditor. The majority thought the demand for an assignation "rested only upon equitable considerations". The minority thought a creditor was obliged to grant an assignation de jure.

 
James Dewar, Esq of Vogrie; John Macculloch, The Elder; and John Macculloch, The Younger of Barholm v Jean Macculloch, Eldest Daughter of The Said John Macculloch of Barholm, The Elder [1772] UKHL 6 - Paton - 785; (1772) 6 Paton 785
18 Jan 1772
HL

Contract
Entail - Revocation - Contract and Discharge. - John Macculloch executed an entail in favour of himself in liferent, and John Macculloch, the younger, his eldest son, and the heirs-male of his body; remainder to the heirs-female of his body; and remainder to other heirs-male named. The entail was recorded, and charter and infeftment followed upon it. Some time thereafter, he, with consent of his son, revoked this entail and sold the estate. Held that the father and son could not, by their joint act and deed of revocation, recall and rescind the entail, or sell the estate of Barholm.
[ Bailii ]
 
James Bruce of Carstairs v Miss Anna Bruce [1772] UKHL 2 - Paton - 258; (1772) 2 Paton 258
7 Apr 1772
HL

Scotland, Contract
Positive Prescription.- Title of possession. - Objections to testing of deed. - Circumstances which elided such objection.
[ Bailii ]
 
Robert Alexander, Esq v James Montgomery and Co [1773] UKHL 2 - Paton - 300; (1773) 2 Paton 300
19 Feb 1773
HL

Scotland, Contract
Sale - Locus Penitentiae.- Circumstances in which written correspondence, in regard to a sale of coal, was not held to amount to a final and conclusive agreement, the parties having stipulated that their agreement was to be a written agreement, and, until this was executed, either might resile; affirming the judgment of the Court of Session.
[ Bailii ]
 
The Magistrates and Town Council of The Burgh of Rutherglen v James Cullen, Wright At Whitehills, James Weir of Hill, and Samuel Steil of Town Head [1773] UKHL 2 - Paton - 305; (1773) 2 Paton 305
12 Mar 1773
HL

Contract
Contract - Error in Essentials.- A contract specified for the building of a bridge from Rutherglen across the river Clyde, and enumerated the height of abutments, and dimensions otherwise, and referred to a plan. But omitted to mention any thing about the depth of the foundation below the bed of the river, which, from the nature of the bed, turned out to require a considerable depth of foundation, strongly piled. Held, that there was no binding contract on the builder to build, this having been omitted, and that he was free. Also held, as to the abutments built on the level of the bed of the river, that he was entitled to take away the materials so erected and built-he repaying to his employers the partial payments made towards the contract price.
[ Bailii ]
 
Alexander M'Clatchie of London v Mary Brand or Burnet, Widow of William Burnet, Merchant In Dumfries [1773] UKHL 2 - Paton - 312; (1773) 2 Paton 312
22 Mar 1773
HL

Contract
Deed - Incapacity - Proof - Testamentany Witness.- Circumstances held insufficient to reduce a deed on the head of fraud and facility. Also held, reversing the judgment of the Court of Session, that the writer who executed the deed challenged, and who was an instrumentary witness, is not, when adduced to prove the capacity of the maker of the deed at the time he executed it, an incompetent witness. Nor is he inadmissible on the ground of partial counsel, from having written into the Edinburgh attorney with instructions to defend this cause.
[ Bailii ]
 
No 27 Mackenzie &Amp; Co v The 'St Andrew' And v Ogilvy, Intervening For His Interest [1774] EngR 23; (1774) Burrell 124; (1774) 167 ER 503
1774


Contract, Transport
Whether a prior or posterior bottomree bond shall have preference for payment.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Vallejo v Wheeler (1774) 1 Cowp 143
1774

Lord Mansfield
Contract
"In all mercantile transactions the great object should be certainty: and therefore, it is of more consequence that a rule should be certain, than whether the rule is established one way or the other. Because speculators in trade then know what ground to go upon."
1 Citers


 
Jones v Randall [1774] EngR 57; (1774) Lofft 383; (1774) 98 ER 706
23 Apr 1774
HL

Contract
Gaming - Declaration that there was a promissory note on a wager given to the piaintiff by defendant in case of a decree in the Court of Chancery should be reversed in the House of Lords, to which decree the person who had laid upon the reversal was party, and had set off his loss by the reversal, upon which the decision would be against him by his gain upon the wager if it should be reversed. They gave in evidence a copy of a minute-book of the House of Lords. Verdict for the plaintiff - upon which motion for a new trial, because evidence insufficient. Lord Mansfield being against them upon that point, there was another that the contract was illegal : so that the points in this case were two.
1. That the evidence was insufficient, which went to the new trial.
2. That the contract was illegal which went to the motion in arrest of judgment.
1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]
 
Jones v Randall and Another [1774] EngR 59; (1774) 1 Cowp 37; (1774) 98 ER 954 (B)
25 Apr 1774

Mansfield L
Contract
Action lies to recover money won upon a wager, "whether a decree of the Court of Chancery would be reversed or not on appeal to the House of Lords ;" unless the motive be fraud or other turpis causa. Contracts not prohibited by positive law, nor adjudged illegal by precedent, may nevertheless be void as against principles.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341; [1775] EngR 58; (1775) 98 ER 1120
5 Jul 1775

Mansfield LCJ
Contract, Torts - Other
Mansfield LCJ set out the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio: "The objection, that a contract is immoral or illegal as between plaintiff and defendant, sounds at all times very ill in the mouth of the defendant. It is not for his sake, however, that the objection is ever allowed; but is founded on general principles of policy, which the defendant has the advantage of, contrary to the real justice, as between him and the plaintiff, by accident, if I may say so. The principle of public policy is this; ex dolo malo non oritur actio. No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. If, from the plaintiff's own stating or otherwise, the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa, or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the court says he has no right to be assisted. It is on that ground the court goes: not for the sake of the Defendant, but because they will not lend their aid to such a Plaintiff. So if the plaintiff and defendant were to change sides, and the defendant was to bring his action against the plaintiff, the latter would then have the advantage of it; for where both are equally in fault, potior est conditio defendentis.
The question therefore is, "Whether, in this case, the plaintiff's demand is founded upon the ground of any immoral act or contract, or upon the ground of his being guilty of any thing which is prohibited by a positive law of this country."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ] - [ Commonlii ]
 
Hope v Tweedie (1776) Mor 9522
1776


Contract, Scotland
The court refused to find an enforceable contract where from the circumstances it was found that the parties cannot have intended that the transactions should have any legal consequences.
1 Citers


 
Martyn v Hind (1776) 2 Cowp 437; 98 ER 1174
1776

Lord Mansfield
Contract

1 Cites


 
John M'Dowal, Merchant In Glasgow, and Alexander Gray, Ws Edinburgh v Annand and Colhoun's Assignees, Merchants [1776] UKHL 2 - Paton - 387
26 Feb 1776
HL

Contract
Guarantee - Relief - Arrestment - Trust - Proof - Oath of Bankrupt.- Two parties became guarantee for a company, on the latter depositing bills due to them in their hands as a security. This was done, and a list of the bills drawn out and handed over, and a receipt granted by the guarantees. They were immediately delivered to one of the partners of the company, who discounted and used some of them for company purposes. Held, on failure of the company, that the guarantees, though they had thus parted with possession, were to be preferred to an arresting creditor. The oath of one of the bankrupts of the company allowed to be taken to prove that he had the bills returned to him, not for behoof of the company, but in trust for the guarantees.
[ Bailii ]
 
Boone v Eyre (1777) 1 Hy Bl 273
1777

Lord Mansfield
Contract
Unless the non-performance alleged to constitute the breach of the contract goes to the whole root and consideration of it the covenant broken is not to be considered as a condition precedent but as a distinct covenant for breach of which the party injured may be compensated in damages. Lord Mansfield said: "The distinction is very clear. Where the mutual covenants go to the whole of the consideration on both sides they are mutual conditions the one precedent to the other. But where they go only to a part, where a breach may be paid for in damages, then the defendant has a remedy for his covenant and shall not plead it as a condition precedent."
1 Citers


 
Simond v Boydell (1779) 1 Dougl 268
1779


Contract
To seek perfect consistency and economy of draftsmanship in a complex form of contract which has evolved over many years is to pursue a chimera.
1 Citers


 
Lowry v Boirdeau (1780) 2 Doug KB 468
1780

Buller J
Contract
‘ignorantia juris non excusat’ - ignorance of the law is no excuse.
1 Citers


 
Marjory Stewart and Patrick Graham, Her Husband v Ann, Mary, and John Gardners, and Thomas Gardner, Their Father [1780] UKHL 2 - Paton - 549; (1780) 2 Paton 549
24 Apr 1780
HL

Contract
Sale of Succession - Agreement - Obligation - Discharge - Novation.-
An agreement was gone into by the residuary legatees in a settlement with the widow of the deceased testator, whereby the latter agreed to purchase their right of succession for a fixed sum, they assigning their interest over to her. Stewart, a neutral party, on behalf of the widow, interposed, and allowed his name to be used in the transaction; and as the estate of the deceased was not then realized, became absolutely bound to pay the respective sums at which their interest was bought up. Thereafter the widow herself transacted with the beneficiaries, and granted bonds to some of them for the amount, without the interference of Stewart, and she granted time for payment. The widow afterwards fell into poverty, and could not pay. Held that Stewart was still bound, and that he was not released by the new transaction had with the widow herself, as that was a mere bond of corroboration, and did not discharge him.
[ Bailii ]
 
Messrs Hodgson and Donaldson, Merchants, Londan v Thomas Bushby of Ardwell [1783] UKHL 2 - Paton - 607; (1783) 2 Paton 607
12 Jul 1783
HL

Contract
Paton Bill - Notice of Dishonour.- Where the holder of a dishonoured bill makes diligent inquiry at the former residence of the holder and indorser, for the purpose of intimating the dishonour, but cannot find him, and does all in his power to intimate dishonour to him, the recourse is not lost against him.
[ Bailii ]
 
Sloman v Walter [1783] EngR 158; (1783) 1 Bro CC 418; (1783) 28 ER 1213
14 Nov 1783

Lord Thurlow LC
Contract, Equity
Common law enforced the bonds according to their letter. But equity regarded the real intention of the parties as being that the bond should stand as security only, and restrained its enforcement at common law on terms that the debtor paid damages, interest and costs.
Lord Thurlow LC said: "where a penalty is inserted merely to secure the enjoyment of a collateral object, the enjoyment of the object is considered as the principal intent of the deed, and the penalty only as accessional, and, therefore, only to secure the damage really incurred . ."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Barwell v Anne Brooks [1784] EngR 43; (1784) 3 Doug 371; (1784) 99 ER 702 (B)
4 Feb 1784

Lord Mansfield CJ
Contract
This was an action for victuals, drink, and other necessaries furnished to the defendant. The declaration also contained a count for goods sold and delivered, and the other common counts. The defendants pleaded her coverture in law. Replication that the said Anne, and the said James her husband, long before the promises in the declaration mentioned, and before the exhibiting of the plaintiffs bill, viz. on the 18th of June, 1778, were parted and separated, and lived separate and apart from each other, and always from thence until the exhibiting of the plaintiff‘s bill, did, and still do, live separate and apart from each other; and the said Anne, during all that time, had a competent separate maintenance and provision allowed her by her said husband, and duly paid to her for her separate support and mainteuance ; and that the said Anne, during that time, made the said promises arid undertakings in the declaration mentioned, for necessaries found and suppiied by the said plaintiff for the said Anne upon her own account and credit, and for her own separate support and maintenance. To this replication, the defendant demurred generally. Held: Lord Mansfield CJ said that "[t]he fashion of the times has introduced an alteration, and now husband and wife may, for many purposes, be separated, and possess separate property, a practice unknown to the old law."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Shetelworth v Neville; 21-Nov-1786 - [1786] EngR 210; (1786) 1 TR 454; (1786) 99 ER 1194
 
Davies v East Times, 08 January 1788
8 Jan 1788


Contract
The plaintiff sold 13 mahogany logs to the defendant. The defendant was to use them for cabinet making and inspected a sample, declaring them not to be of the best but adequate for chairs. When the entire consignment was delivered, he refused to pay saying that they had holes 'so big you could put your head in them'. Held; The plaintiff succeeded. The logs delivered were of the same quality as inspected, and so the buyer knew what he was getting.

 
David Donald of Conbeath v Anne Kirkaldy, Widow of James Donald, Druggist In Edinburgh, Deceased [1788] UKHL 3 - Paton - 105
8 Apr 1788
HL

Contract
Proving the Tenor - Special Casus Amissionis, when necessary. - Antenuptial Contract of Marriage. - Whether the parties can agree to retire and discharge it after marriage?
[ Bailii ]
 
Edward Bruce, Clerk To The Signet v Walter Ross, Clerk To The Signet [1788] UKHL 3 - Paton - 107
14 Apr 1788
HL

Contract
Wagers - Sponsiones Ludicrae. - Whether debts incurred by wagering are good in law? - Held, that no action lay on such claims, upon the principle of sponsiones ludicrae.
[ Bailii ]
 
Crowe v Ballard [1789] EngR 466; (1789-1817) 1 Ves Jun Supp 91; (1789) 34 ER 705 (B)
1789


Contract

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Pasley v Freeman; 1789 - (1789) 3 Durn and E 51; (1789) 3 Term Rep 5F; [1789] EngR 1703; (1789) 3 TR 51; (1789) 100 ER 450

 
 Payne v Cave; 2-May-1789 - (1789) 3 TR 148; [1789] EngR 2443; (1789) 100 ER 502 (B)
 
Ex Parte Saunderson [1789] EngR 2578; (1789) 2 Cox 196; (1789) 30 ER 91 (A)
4 Aug 1789


Contract
A master is at liberty under the usual order to examine parties viva voce, after he has examined them on interrogatories, if not satisfied with the former examination. Q. The principle upon which it has been decided that a negotiable instrument given for an usurious consideration, is bad in the hands of an innocent indorsee.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Petrie And Another, Executors of Page Keeble, v Hannay, Baronet [1789] EngR 2589; (1789) 3 TR 418; (1789) 100 ER 652
13 Nov 1789


Contract
If two persons jointly engage in a stock-jobbing transaction, and incur losses, and employ a broker to pay the differences, and one of them repay the broker with the privity atid consent of the other the whole sum, he may recover a moiety from that other in an action for money paid to his use; notwithstanding the 7 Qeo. 2, e. 8.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Cooke v Oxley; 14-May-1790 - [1790] EngR 2367; (1790) 3 TR 653; (1790) 100 ER 785 (B)
 
Thorpe v Thorpe [1792] EngR 2636; (1792) 1 Ld Raym 662; (1792) 91 ER 1341
1792


Contract
The releass of an equity of redemption is a good consideration for a contract.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Hardy v Bern [1794] EngR 782; (1794) 5 TR 636; (1794) 101 ER 355 (B)
1794


Contract
This case, which is brought by writ of error from the Court of Exchequer, is an action of debt upon articles of agreement containing divers stipulations of things to be done by the defendant; and there is a penal clause, whereby the parties became mutually bound to each other in the penal sum of 100l for the performance of the articles. The action is brought for that penalty, and the plaintiff, in his declaration, alleged the breach of several of the stipulations entered into by the defendant. These breaches were severally denied by the defendant, and issues were joined thereon. All the issues were found for the plaintiff, and a verdict given for him for 1s.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Brewster v Kitchell [1795] EngR 616; (1795) 1 Salk 198; (1795) 91 ER 177 (B)
1795


Contract
"Where H covenants not do to an act or thing which was lawful to do, and an Act of Parliament comes after and compels him to do it, the statute repeals the covenant. So if H covenants to do a thing which is lawful, and an Act of Parliament comes in and hinders him from doing it, the covenant is repealed."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 The Bank of England v Morice; 1795 - [1795] EngR 3335; (1795) 2 Str 1028; (1795) 93 ER 1012 (B)
 
Cutter v Powell [1795] EWHC KB J13; [1795] EngR 4125; (1795) 6 TR 320; (1795) 101 ER 573
9 Jun 1795
KBD

Contract, Employment
The plaintiff's estate sought payment from the employer who had agreed to pay the deceased thirty pounds for an entire voyage. The plaintiff died part way through the voyage. The estate argued for payment on a quantum meruit. Held: The court found there was no standard custom and practice. The contract was for an entire service. It was a condition precedent for payment that that service be completed. It had not been, and no payment was due. Ashurst J said: "This is a written contract, and it speaks for itself. And as it is entire, and as the defendant's promise depends on a condition precedent to be performed by the other party, the condition must be performed before the other party is entitled to receive any thing under it. It has been argued however that the plaintiff may now recover on a quantum meruit: but she has no right to desert the agreement; for wherever there is an express contract the parties must be guided by it; and one party cannot relinquish or abide by it as it may suit his advantage."
[ Bailii ] - [ Commonlii ]
 
Baynham v Guy's Hospital (1796) 3 Vesey 295; [1775-1802] All ER Rep 536; (1796) 30 ER 1019
1796


Contract
A legal deed is not to be construed by reference to the acts of the parties.
1 Citers


 
Marchington v Vernon (1797) 1 Bos and P 101 n (c); 126 ER 801 n (c)
1797

Buller J
Contract
Independently of the rules prevailing in mercantile transactions, where one person makes a promise to another for the benefit of a third, the third may maintain an action upon it.

 
Lord Walpole v Lord Orford (1797) 3 Ves Jun 402; [1797] EngR 489; (1797) 3 Ves Jun 402; (1797) 30 ER 1076
1797
HL
Lord Loughborough LC, Lord Camden L.C
Contract, Trusts
The court considered the difference between an obligation accepted in law, and what was described as 'an honourable engagement'.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Frampton v Coulson [1799] EngR 161; (1799) 1 Wils KB 33; (1799) 95 ER 476
1799


Contract
A request laid in the declaration to pay the debt before it is due is not material. Vide 1 Saund. 33, when it is material to aver a request.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.