Barlow v Browne

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtExchequer
Judgment Date21 Nov 1846

English Reports Citation: 153 E.R. 1127

IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER

Barlow
and
Browne

S. C. 16 L. J. Ex. 62.

BARLOW v. browne. Nov. 21, 1846.-The defendant, as the agent of an executor, wrote to a legatee informing him of his legacy and its amount, and stating that he would remit it in any way the legatee might suggest. He transacted the business necessary for the transfer of the legacy, and remitted to the legatee the amount of the legacy, minus a sum deducted for expenses : - Held, that the defendant was not liable to the legatee, in an action for money had and received for | the sum iso deducted. ! ; [S. C. 16 L. J. Ex. 62.] I Debt for money had and received. Pleas, 1st, nunquam indebitattis ; and 2ndly, a $et-of for work and labour, and issue thereon. At the trial, before the Secondary of London, it appeared in evidence, that, by the will of a deceased persoti of the name of trrantham, the sum of 1:50 [127] was bequeathed amongst four persons, of whom the plaintiff was one, (his share amounting, after payment of legacy duty, to ;!Q1. 17s. 6d.), and one Odclie was appointed executor. The defendant, who was the executor's brother-in-law, atid acted as his agent in the management of the business relating to the legacies, wrote to the plaintiff a letter, on the 17th of March, 1845, first giving him information as to his right to the legacy, and stating its amount; and subsequently, in a letter to a, peraon mimed Gaskell, an agent of the plaintiff, he 11)28 KEARSLEY r. COLE 16 M. & W. 128. stated that he would remit the plaintiff's legacy in any manner he might suggest. He afterwards inclosed, in another letter to the plaintiff, the legacy receipt for signature ; and ultimately remitted to him the sum of 24, the remaining 61. l7s. 6d. being deducted as the plaintiff's share of the expenses attending the business, of which the defendant inclosed him an account. It was to recover the sum of 61. 17s. 6d. that the present action was brought. It was objected for the defendant, that, upon these facts, the action was not maintainable. The Secondary reserved the point, and a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, leave being reserved to the defendant to move to enter a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Widders, App, Gorton, Resp
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Common Pleas
    • 27 January 1857
    ...N. P. C. 157 ; Dobree v. Eastwood, 3 C. & P. 250; Slacken v. Collins, 7 M. &'W. 515, 9 C. & P. 653; Woodcock v. Houldsworth, 16 M. & W. 126. 1 C. B. (N. S.) 583. SIMMONS V. SIGGJ3RS 239 tion. If any question of fact was necessary to be found to justify that judgment, we must......
  • Treacy v Corcoran
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 31 January 1874
    ...Jones v. Carter 8 Q. B. 134. Stephens v. BadcockENR 3 B. & Ad. 354. Baron v. HusbandENR 4 B. & Ad. 611. Barlow v. BrowneENR 16 M. & W. 126. Cobb v. Becke 6 Q. B. 930. Lowndes v. Earl of Stamford 18 Q. B. 425, 439. Jones v. Carter 8 Q. B. 134. Stephens v. BadcockENR 3 B. & Ad......
  • Leader v Leader
    • Ireland
    • Common Pleas Division (Ireland)
    • 11 November 1871
    ...Pleas. LEADER and LEADER. Jones v. Carter 8 Q. B. 134. Moses v. MacferlanENR 2 Burr. 1005. Barlow v. BrowneENR 16 M. & W. 126. Rogers v. KellyENR 2 Camp. 123. Money had and received Plaintiff equitably to th Money Absence of Legal Privity. 20 THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. LEADER v. LEADER. Mon......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT