Astley v Frances Weldon
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 January 1801 |
| Date | 27 January 1801 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 126 E.R. 1318
IN THE COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER AND IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS
See Ranger v. Great Western Railway, 1854, 5 H. L. C. 119. Applied, In re Newman, 1876, 4 Ch. D. 731. Commented on, Waillis v. smith, 1882, 21 Ch. D. 265. Principle applied, Catton v. Bennett, 1884, 51 L. T. 72. Approved, Elphinstone v. Monkland Iron and Coal Company, 1886, 11 App. Cas. 347. Applied, Law Redditch Local Board, [1892] 1 Q. B. 130.
astley v. frances weldon. Jan. 27th, 1801. [See Ranger v. Great Western Railway, 1854, 5 H. L. C. 119. Applied, In re Newman, 1876, 4 Ch. D. 731. Commented on, Wallis v. Smith, 1882, 21 Ch. D. 265. Principle applied, Gallon v. Bennett, 1884, 51 L. T. 72. Approved, Elphinslone v. a BOS. & PtJL. 847. A STLEY V. WELDON 1319 Monkland Iron and Coal Company, 1886, 11 App. Cas. 347. Applied, Law v. E&dditch Local Board, [1892J 1 Q. B. 130.] By articles of agreement between the Plaiotiff and Defendant it was agreed on the part of the former that he should pay the latter so much per week to perform at his theatres, with her travelling expences of removing from one theatre to another except extra baggage; and on the part of the Defendant, that she should perform at the theatres such things as she should be required by the Plaintiff, and attend at the theatre beyond the usual hours on any emergency and at rehearsals or be subject to auoh fines as are established at the theatres, and be at the theatre half an hour before the performances begin, and abide by the regulations of the theatres and pay all fines; and it was agreed by both parties that " either of them neglecting to perform that agreement should pay to the other 2001." Assumpsit upon this agreement stating several breaches, and concluding to the Plaintiffs damage of 2001.-Held that the sum mentioned in the agreement was in the nature of a penalty, not of liquidated damages (a). Asiumpsit The declaration stated an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, whereby the Plaintiff in consideration of the services of the Defendant therein after mentioned, agreed to pay her during the term of three years the sum of 11. lls. 6d. per week, and to pay her travelling expences in her removal at the usual seasons of the year from the Plaintiff's Theatres in London, Liverpool, and Dublin, or elsewhere, save and except her extra luggage, which was to be paid for by herself; and the Defendant in consideration of such weekly salary agreed, that she would during the said term of three years, "at the usual and accustomed time or times in each day and at all other times when required by the Plaintiff or bis assigns to the best of her judgment power and ability do and perform on the respective theatres of the said Plaintiff all and every such matters and things as might from time to time be required of her as a performer or otherwise by the said Plaintiff or his assigns in the several public performances to be from time to time exhibited on the several stages of the respective theatres of the said Plaintiff either in England Ireland or Scotland when and as often as need or occasion should be or require and when directed or requested thereto by the said Plaintiff or his assigns; he the said Plaintiff thereby agreeing to find fit and proper theatrical dresses for the occasion ; And likewise it was thereby further covenanted and agreed on between the parties aforesaid that she the said Defendant should and would during the said term thereby agreed on over and above the usual and customary hours of attendance and on any emergent [347] occasion attend as well as assist at either of the said theatres of the said Plaintiff in forwarding the several performances as well as attend all rehearsals at the respective theatres of the said Plaintiff or subject herself to the payment of the fines and forfeitures established in the respective theatres; and also that the said Defendant should and would on every night's public performance at the respective theatres and before the performance attend and be there at least one half hour before such public performance should begin unless permission should be bad and obtained from the said Plaintiff or his assigns in writing to the contrary ; And also that the said Defendant should ia all things conform to and duly comply with and abide by the several rules and regulations of the respective theatres in every respect in common with the several performers employed therein; and likewise pay all fine or fines that might become due and payable by means of any forfeiture or other matter cause or thing whatsoever; Provided that the Plaintiff should have power to determine the agreement by notice in writing, and that if any of his theatres should be shut on particular occasions therein specified or the Defendant should be prevented from attending, the Plaintiff should be at liberty to deduct a proportionable part of her salary, and that if the Plaintiff should be minded to shut up hia theatres...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jobson v Johnson
...was not enforced, even though the desired result could legitimately have been achieved if the clause had been drawn differently. Thus in Astley v. Weldon (1801) 2 Bos at p.346, Heath J. states at page 353:— "It is a well-known rule of equity, that if a mortgage covenant be to pay 5 per cent......
-
Lucio Robert Paciocco and Another v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd
...and Forfeiture, (1992) at 33. 164 (1783) 1 Bro CC 418 at 419 [ 28 ER 1213 at 1214]. 165Astley v Weldon (1801) 2 Bos & Pul 346 at 350–351 [ 126 ER 1318 at 166Wallis v Smith (1882) 21 Ch D 243 at 259–260. 167 Bell, Commentaries on the Law of Scotland, 7th ed (1870), vol 1 at 700, quoted in Ca......
-
Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd
...Pleading, (1895) at 220. 80 AMEV-UDC Finance Ltd v Austin (1986) 162 CLR 170 at 187; Astley v Weldon (1801) 2 Bos & Pul 346 at 350–351 [ 126 ER 1318 at 1321] per Lord Eldon; Hardy v Martin (1783) 1 Cox 26 [ 29 ER 1046]; Daniell, The Practice of the High Court of Chancery, 5th ed (1871), vo......
- Amev-Udc Finance Ltd v Austin