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.  














Damages - From: 1800 To: 1849

This page lists 18 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.


 
 Hogg v Kirby; 15-Mar-1803 - [1803] EngR 513; (1803) 8 Ves Jun 215; (1803) 32 ER 336 (B)
 
Baker v Bolton and others [1808] EWCC J38; [1808] EWHC KB J92; (1808) 1 Camp 493; 170 ER 1033
8 Dec 1808
KBD
Lord Ellenborough
Personal Injury, Damages
The plaintiff and his wife had been thrown from the roof of a coach. The plaintiff sought damages for the loss of his wife's "comfort, fellowship, and assistance". Held: The claim failed in part: "the jury could only take into consideration the bruises which the plaintiff had himself sustained, and the loss of his wife's society, and the distress of mind he had suffered on her account, from the time of the accident till the moment of her dissolution. In a civil Court, the death of a human being could not be complained of as an injury; and in this case the damages, as to the plaintiff's wife, must stop with the period of her existence. "
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Forgie v Henderson (1818) 1 Murray 413
1818

Lord Chief Commissioner Adam
Scotland, Damages
The pursuer was assaulted by the defender. During part of his resulting illness he received an allowance from a friendly society. Held: In charging the jury, the Lord Chief said 'I do not think that you can deduct the allowance from the Society, as that is of the nature of an insurance, and is a return of money paid'
1 Citers


 
Whitelegg v Richards (1823) 2 B&C 45
1823

Abbott CJ
Torts - other, Damages
A debtor had been imprisoned to coerce him to pay his debt to the plaintiff. The defendant, a court clerk, ordered him to be released. The plaintiff said this was "wrongfully and maliciously intending to injure the plaintiff". Abbott CJ recorded: "On the argument before us, some authorities were quoted to shew, that an action upon the case may be maintained against an officer of a Court for a falsity or misconduct in his office, whereby a party sustains a special damage; and that, in this case, a damage was plainly shewn by the loss of the means of enforcing payment from the debtor, as in actions against sheriffs or gaolers for an escape. It is not necessary to repeat the authorities quoted. The general principle was not contraverted". Damage was regarded as the gist of the action.
1 Citers


 
Adamson v Jervis [1827] 4 Bin 66
1827

Best CJ
Damages
“From the inclination of the court in this last case, and from the concluding part of Lord Kenyon’s judgment in Merryweather v Nixon, and from reason, justice and sound policy, the rule that wrongdoers cannot have redress or contribution against each other is confined to cases where the person seeking redress must be presumed to have known that he was doing an unlawful act.”

 
Page v Newman (1829) 9 B&C 378
1829

Lord Tenterden CJ
Damages
Under common law "the long-established rule that interest is not due on money secured by a written instrument, unless it appears on the face of the instrument that interest was intended to be paid, or unless it be implied from the usage of trade, as in the case of mercantile instruments."
1 Citers



 
 Kemble v Farren; 6-Jul-1829 - [1829] EngR 590; (1829) 5 Bing 141; (1829) 130 ER 1234
 
Fruhling v Schroeder (1835) 2 Bing (NC) 78
1835


Damages
An action for money had and received can recover only the original sum.
1 Citers


 
Fraser v Berkeley [1836] 7 Carrington & Payne 621
1836

Lord Abinger
Torts - Other, Damages
The defendant had written a book and the plaintiff had written a rather caustic criticism of it which reflected not only on the defendant's skill as an author but on his character and that of his family. This annoyed the defendant very much, and with his brother he went to the plaintiff's shop and gave him a very severe beating indeed with his fists and a horse-whip. Held: Lord Abinger in summing up told the jury that in assessing the damages they could properly take into account the plaintiff's conduct and the imputations which he had made against the defendant and his family.
1 Citers


 
Holme And Another v Guppy And Another [1838] EngR 133; (1838) 3 M & W 387; (1838) 150 ER 1195
1838


Contract, Damages
The plaintiffs, on the 19th April, 1836, entered into a written contract to build, for the sum of 1700l., a brewery for the defenclants, so far as regarded the carpenters’ work, within the space of four months and a half next ensuing the date (if the agreement : and in default of completirig the same within the time therein-before limited, to forfeit to the defendants 40l. per week for each week that the completion of the work should be delayed beyond the 31st August, the amount to be deducted from the said sum of 1700l, as liquidated damages. The plaintiffs did not begin the work for four weeks after the date of the agreement, in consequence of the defendants not being able to give them possession they were afterwards delayed one week by the default of their own workmen, and four weeks by the default of the masons, & c, employed by the defendants; and the work was not completed till five weeks after the time limited :--Held, that the defendants were not entititled to deduct from the 1700l. any sum in respect of the delay, either for the one or the four weeks.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Martin v Porter (1839) 5 M&W 351
1839


Damages
Trespass to land - way-leave - unauthorised mining.
1 Citers


 
Dunlop v Lambert (1839) 6 Cl & F 600; (1839) 3 Maclean & R 663
1839
HL
Lord Cottenham LC
Damages, Transport, Scotland
A cargo of whisky was lost in carriage by sea between Leith and Newcastle. A second shipment was made and the loss was claimed. The House was asked whether "in a question between a carrier and the person to whom the carrier is responsible in the event of the property being lost, whether it be true in law, that the sending of an invoice to the consignee, by which it appeared that the property had been insured and the freight paid by the consignor, and the amount charged by the consignor to the consignee, deprived the consignor of the power of suing, and of an interest or right to recover the value of the property." Held: While in general delivery to the carrier was delivery to the consignee and the risk then passed to the consignee, that position could be varied: "If a particular contract be proved between the consignor and the consignee, - and it does not follow that the circumstance of the freight and the insurance being paid by the one or the other is to be considered a conclusive evidence of ownership, - as notwithstanding the ordinary rule, of course there may be special contracts; - where the party undertaking to consign undertakes to deliver at a particular place, and if he undertakes to deliver at a particular place, the property, till it reaches that place, and is delivered according to the contract, is at the risk of the party consigning; so although the consignor may follow the directions of the consignee, and deliver the property to be conveyed, either by a particular carrier or in the ordinary course of business, still the consignor may make such a contract with the carrier as will make the carrier liable to him ." and "Although, generally speaking, where there is a delivery to a carrier to deliver to a consignee, the consignee is the proper person to bring the action against the carrier if they should be lost; yet the consignor may have a right to sue if he made a special contract with the carrier, and the carrier has agreed to take the goods from the consignor and to deliver them to any particular person at a particular place, which special contract supersedes the necessity of showing ownership in the goods; and by authority of the case of Davis v. James (5 Burr. 2680), and the latest case of Joseph v. Knox (3 Camp. 320) that the consignor is able to maintain an action, though the goods may be the goods of the consignee. . the authorities seem to me to establish that the consignor is entitled to maintain the action where there is a contract to deliver at a particular place, provided the risk appears in fact to be still on him."
Lord Cottenham LC discussed whether the delivery to a carrier was delivery to the purchaser: "It is no doubt true as a general rule, that the delivery by the consignor to the carrier is a delivery to the consignee, and that the risk is after such delivery the risk of the consignee. This is so if, without designating the particular carrier, the consignee directs that the goods shall be sent by the ordinary conveyance: the delivery to the ordinary carrier is then a delivery to the consignee, and the consignee incurs all the risk of the carriage. And it is still more strongly so if the goods are sent by a carrier specially pointed out by the consignee himself, for such carrier then becomes his special agent." and "But though the authorities all establish the general inference I have stated, yet that general inference is capable of being varied by the circumstances of any special arrangement between the parties, or of any particular mode of dealing between them."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Foss v Harbottle; 25-Mar-1843 - [1843] 67 ER 189; [1843] EngR 478; (1843) 2 Hare 461
 
The Gazelle (1844) 2 W Rob 279
1844

Dr Lushington
Damages
A vessel was damaged by collision. What was the amount to be paid to the owners of the damaged vessel for its repair? Held: The measure of the indemnification to which the owner of the damaged vessel was entitled was co-extensive with the amount of the damage: "The right against the wrongdoer is for a restitutio in integrum, and this restitution he is bound to make without calling upon the party injured to assist him in any way whatsoever. If the settlement of the indemnification be attended with any difficulty (and in those cases difficulties must and will frequently occur), the party in fault must bear the inconvenience. He has no right to fix this inconvenience upon the injured party; and if that party derives incidentally a greater benefit than mere indemnification, it arises only from the impossibility of otherwise effecting such indemnification without exposing him to some loss or burden, which the law will not place upon him." It is not open to the wrongdoer to require the injured party to bear any part of the cost of obtaining such indemnification for his loss as will place him in the same position as he was before the accident.
1 Citers


 
Hide v Thornborough (1846) 2 Car & Kir 250
1846


Damages

1 Citers


 
Beaumont v Greathead (1846) 2 CB 494
1846

Maule J
Damages
'Nominal damages are a mere peg on which to hang costs. … Nominal damages, in fact, mean a sum of money that may be spoken of, but that has no existence in point of quantity.'
1 Citers


 
Robinson v Harman [1848] 1 Exch Rep 850; (1843-60) All ER 383; [1848] EngR 135; (1848) 1 Exch 850; (1848) 154 ER 363
18 Jan 1848

Baron Parke
Damages, Contract
Damages for breach of contract should compensate the victim of the breach for the loss of his contractual bargain. Baron Parke said: 'The next question is: What damages is the plaintiff entitled to recover? The rule of the common law is, that where a party sustains a loss by reason of a breach of contract, he is, so far as money can do it to be placed in the same situation, with regard to damages as if the contract had been performed."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Duke of Brunswick v Harmer; QBD 2-Nov-1849 - (1849) 14 QB 185; [1849] EngR 915; (1849) 117 ER 75
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.