Bland v Haselrig & Alios
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1726 |
| Date | 01 January 1726 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 86 E.R. 363
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
2VENTRIS, 182. PASCH. ANNO 2 W. AND M. IN C. B. 363 bland versus haselrig & alios. Q. 5 Mod. 425, 426. 6 Mod. 240. 1 Saiind. 37, 38. 2 Saund. 65, 125. 2 Lev. 166. 3 Lev. 367. 2 Salk. 420 to 425. 2 Mod. 71, 72, &c. 2 Lutw. 813. Postea 224. Quarto Jacobi Secundi the case was, An assumpsit was brought against four, who pleaded non assumpser' infra sex annos, and the verdict was, that one of the defendants did assume infra sex annos, and the other non assumpsit. And it was moved that no judgment could be given against the defendant, upon whom the verdict was found, for this is an indeb' assump' for goods sold, and 'tis an intire contract, and they must all be found to promise, or else 'tis against the plaintiff. Torts are in their nature several, so one defendant may be found guilty and the other not guilty, but 'tis not so in actions grounded upon contract. Pollexfen, Chief Justice, Powell and Rokeby were of opinion in this case, that the plaintiff could not have judgment. Ventris inclined to the contrary; he admitted if an indebitat' assumpsit be brought against four, and they plead non assumps' and found that one of them assumed, this is against the plaintiff, for he fails in his action. But in the case at Bar it may be taken, [162] that they did all promise at first, and that one of them only renewed the promise within six years : the plea of non assumpsit infra sex annos implies a promise at first, and if one should renew his promise within six years, 'tis...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scales v Jacob
...might perhaps infer a promise, but from which the Court would not imply one. In Dic&son v. Thompson (2 Show. 126), and Bland v. Haselrig (2 Ventr. 151), it was thought that even an express promise would not revive the debt, or give a new right of action ; and in Leaper v. Tatton (16 East, 4......
-
Boson v Sandford
...brought by either. * Raym. 220, S. C. 1 Mod. Eep. 85, S. C. 1 Vent. 190, 238, S. C. Sid. 36, S. C. *Noyl35. 2Saund. 345. 1 Koll. Abr. 921. 2 Vent. 151. Hob. 260. Hutt. 121. 1 Mod. 198. CABTHEW. 81 TERM. S. TRIN. 1 W. AND M. B. R. 641 And the Chief Justice and two other Judges held, that the......
-
John Atkins and William Atkins, Executors of John Atkins, against Henry Tredgold, Robert Tredgold, James Rolfe, and John Knight, Executors of John Tredgold, deceased
...Eaym. 1101. S. C. 6 Mod. 309), Heylen v. Hastings (6 Mod. 309), and Hickman v. Walker (Willes, 27). It is true, that in Bland v. Haselrig (2 Vent. 151), it was decided, that the acknowledgment of one out of several who were jointly indebted, did not prevent the operation of the Statute of L......
-
Perham v Raynal, Forsey, and Milverton
...the authority of Whitcamb v. WTiiting had been much shaken by what fell from the judge in Atkins v. Tregold, and that Bland v. Haselrig (2 Vent. 151), was an authority the other way. He also cited Booth v. Quin (7 Price, 193), where in an action against other partners, on a bill accepted by......