Beaumont v Greathead
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 January 1846 |
| Date | 14 January 1846 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 135 E.R. 1039
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
S. C. 3 D. & L. 631; 15 L. J. C. P. 130. Followed, Thame v. Boast, 1848, 12 Q. B. 815. Distinguished, Goodwin v. Cremer, 1852, 18 Q. B. 761. Adopted, Tetley v. Wanless, 1867, L. R. 2 Ex. 280.
beaumont v. greathead. Jan. 14, 1846. [S. C. 3 D. & L. 631 j 15 L. J. C. P. 130. Followed, Thame v. Boast, 1848, 12 Q. B. 815. Distinguished, Goodwin v. Cremer, 1852, 18 Q. B. 761. Adopted, Tetley v. Wanless, 1867, L. E, 2 Ex. 280.] A., being sued on a joint and several promissory note made by himself, and by B., and C., pleaded that he paid to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff accepted and received, the moneys in the declaration mentioned, in full satisfaction and discharge of the debt and damages in the declaration mentioned :-Held, that the plea was sustained by proof that the amount of the note was paid by C.-Held, also, that the jury-were not bound to give nominal damages, though the money was not paid until some time after the maturity of the note (of. Debt for 1101. upon a promissory note for 501., dated the 20th of April, 1842, payable two months after date, with counts for 301. money lent, and 301. upon an account stated. Damages 501. Plea, that, after the accruing of the causes of action, and every of them, and before, &e., to wit, on, &c., the defendant paid to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff accepted and received from the defendant, divers sums of money, amounting to all the moneys in the declaration mentioned, in full satisfaction and discharge of the debt and damages in the declaration mentioned-verification. Replication, traversing the acceptance in satisfaction. The cause was tried before Tindal, C. J., at the sit-[495]-tings in London after last Trinity term. The action was brought in the name of Beaumont, as trustee for a loan society, to recover principal and interest alleged to be due upon a joint and several promissory note given to the society by one Green, -a& principal debtor, and the defendant and one Chittleborough, as sureties. Green being called in support of the plea, stated, that at various times, after the note became due, he had made payments on account thereof, amounting in the whole to 501., to one Boatman, the secretary of the society. On the part of the plaintiff it was submitted, that, assuming Green's statement to be true, it did not support the plea; that, at all events, the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict for the interest accruing after the maturity of the note; and that the payment ought to have been pleaded according to the fact, as a payment made, not by the defendant, but by Green. It was left to the jury to say whether or not Green really did pay the 501. to Boatman. A verdict was found for the defendant, with leave to the plaintiff to move to enter a verdict for nominal damages, if the court should be of opinion that he was entitled to interest (a)8. Byles, Serjt., in Michaelmas term last, obtained a rule nisi accordingly. (a)1 And see...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Paya Terubong Estate Sdn Bhd; Tan Geok Khoon & Gerard Francis Robless
- Lo Khi on (t/a Fuji Hairdressing Saloon) v Tanjong Aru Hotel Sdn Bhd
-
Palmer v McGowan (No 5)
...to the verdict or judgment because your legal right has been infringed. 504 “Nominal damages”, remarked Maule J in Beaumont v Greathead (1846) 135 ER 1039 (at 1041), “means a sum of money that may be spoken of, but that has no existence in point of quantity”. The authorities reveal that aft......
-
Lewis v Australian Capital Territory
...(1986) 5 NSWLR 338 Banque Keyser Ullmann SA v Skandia (UK) Insurance Co Ltd [1990] 1 QB 665 Beaumont v Greathead (1846) 2 CB 494 at 499 ; 135 ER 1039 Bedford v Earle (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 309 Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464 Bostridge v Oxlea NHS Foundation Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 79 Bromley ......
-
Damages
...nominal damages is that they may be a "peg on which to hang costs." [Note 2: Maule J. in Beaumont v. Greathead (1846), 2 C.B. 494 at 499, 135 E.R. 1039] The Mediana, [1900] A.C. 113, per Lord Halsbury L.C. at 116: "Nominal damages" is a technical phrase which means that you have negatived a......
-
Table of cases
............................................................................................... 357 Beaumont v Greathead (1846), 2 CB 494, 135 ER 1039, 15 LJCP 130, 6 LTOS 297 ............................................................................ 355 Beaver Lumber Co v McLenaghan (1982),......
-
Nominal Damages and Contemptuous Damages
...where monetary damages are difficult to quantify, and in any event, 4 Justice Maule in Beaumont v Greathead (1846), 2 CB 494 at 499, 135 ER 1039. See, for example, Georgian Bluffs (Township) v Moyer , 2012 ONCA 700, where the defendant counterclaimed damages for conversion, trespass, and pu......
-
Nominal Damages and Contemptuous Damages
...(London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2003) at 362 [10-008]. 2 Ibid. at 360 [10-004]. 3 Maule J. in Beaumont v. Greathead (1846), 2 C.B. 494 at 499, 135 E.R. 1039. 310 Nominal Damages and Contemptuous Damages 311 necessary in most provinces because courts have a wide discretion as to costs and may awar......