Battley and Another against Faulkner and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 January 1820 |
| Date | 24 January 1820 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 668
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Referred to, Gibbs v. Guild, 1881-82, 8 Q. B. D. 302; 9 Q. B. D. 59.
[288] battley and another against faulkner and another. Monday, , January 24th, 1820. Where A., under a contract to deliver spring wheat had delivered to B. winter wheat, and B., having again sold the same as spring wheat had, in consequence, been compelled, after a suit in Scotland which lasted many SB. &ALD.289, BATTLEY V. FAULKNER 669 years, to pay damages to the vendee, and afterwards B. brought an action of assumpsit against A. for his breach of contract, alleging as special damage, the damages so recovered: Held, that although such special damage had occurred within six years before the commencement of the action by B. against A., yet that the breach of contract, which, in assumpsit, was the gist of the action, having occurred and become known to B. more than six years before that period, A. might properly plead actio non accrevit infra sex annos. [Referred to, GMs v. Guild, 1881-82, 8 Q. B. D. 302; 9 Q. B. D. 59.] Assumpsit. The declaration stated, that in consideration that plaintiff would buy of defendants a certain quantity of spring wheat for seed; the defendants undertook, that the same should be spring wheat. Breach, that the wheat was not of that description; but, on the contrary, was, at the time of the sale, winter wheat. Ifc then stated, as special damage, that the plaintiffs had sold the wheat to one Shepard as spring wheat, and that he had caused it to be sown as such wheat in the spring of the year 1810, and that the wheat became and was unproductive, and would not ripen or bring crops to maturity in that year, whereby Shepard lost the use of his land. It then stated, that an action was brought by Shepard against the plaintiffs, in the Court of Session in Scotland, for the damage sustained by him, in consequence of the wheat not being spring wheat, and that he recovered damages and costs. Plea, first, general issue; secondly, that the cause of action did not accrue within six years. At the trial before Abbott C.J., at the London sittings after last Trinity term, it appeared on .the statement of plaintiff's counsel, that in the early part of the year 1810, the plaintiffs, who reside in Scotland, bought the wheat in question of the defendants, as spring wheat, and sold it as such to one Shepard, who having sown his land with it, and having discovered, in the autumn, that it was almost wholly unproductive, gave notice to [289] the plaintiffs, that he considered them responsible to him for the loss of his crop from the lands where it was sown. The plaintiffs communicated this to the defendants; and, after Shepard had commenced proceedings in the Scotch Court against them, in June 1811, gave the defendants notice that he had done so, and was about to assess damages against them. Nothing more passed between the parties till the beginning of the year 1818, when the suit in Scotland being then completed, the plaintiffs paid Shepard his damages and costs, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Midland Bank Trust Company Ltd v Hett, Stubbs & Kemp
... ... MIDLAND BANK TRUST CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER v. HETT, STUBBS & KEMP (A FIRM) ... [1972 G. No. 2267] ... of land to third party - Whether right of action against solicitors statute-barred - Whether solicitors liable both ... 422 ; [ 1968 ] 1 All E.R. 1068 ... Battley v. Faulkner ( 1820 ) 3 B. & Ald. 288 ... Batty ... ...
-
Loxley v Heath
...& F. 611 ; S. C., 7 Bligh. N. S. 1) ; Mawnsell v. White (1 Jo. & Lat. 539); Kay v. Crook (3 Sm. & Gif. 409, 417); Battley v. Faulkner (3 B. & A. 288); 29 Car. 2, c. 3. the lord chancellor. My conclusion is that the judgment of the Master of the Rolls in this case must be affirmed, though no......
-
Smith v Fox
...than six years after the negligence occurred ? In assumpsit the cause of action arises on the breach , of promise: Battky v. .Faulkner (3 B. & A. 288), Short [390] v. M'Carthy (ubi supra), Tanner v. Smart: (6 B. & G 6.03). In trespass also the cause of action arises at the time when the wro......
-
Medical and Immuniodiagnostic Laboratory Ltd v Dorrett O'Meally Johnson
...to goods accrues when the goods are delivered and not when the defect is discovered or damage ensues. This principle is confirmed by Battley v Faulkner (1820) 3 B & Ald 288. In the instant case, time started running from 23 March 2003, when the chairs were delivered, and the claim would exp......