Bonsor v Element
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 December 1833 |
| Date | 13 December 1833 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 172 E.R. 1220
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
Adjourned Sittings in London, after Michaelmas Term, 1833, before Lord Chief Justice Tindal. Dec. 13th, 1833. bonsor v. element (The Judge in an undefended cause, where the plaintiff could not get on for want of a written agreement, discharged the jury, and allowed the record to be withdrawn, in order to save expense to the parties.) Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. The cause was undefended. A witness for the plaintiff proved, that when, upon some dispute in relation to the goods in question, which were machines for weaving, the parties went before a ma-[131]-gistEate, the defendant stated that he had bought the machines for £36, and had paid part of the money ; but the witness added, that there was a written agreement between the parties upon the subject. This agreement not being in Court - Tindal, C. J. - The plaintiff should produce this agreement, and, if he does not, he must be called. It is true that the defendant admitted, when he was before the magistrate, that he had bought the machines, and that the price was £36, of which he had paid part. But that does not enable the plaintiff to proceed as for goods sold, without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swift v Swift
...Bench SWIFT and SWIFT Bonsor v. ElementENR 6 C. & P. 230. Anonymous case 3 Law Rec., O. S., 73. Hopper v. SmithENR 1 M. & M. 115. Edge v. Wandesforde 9 Ir. Law Rep. 161. Lee v. Butler Arm. Mac. & Ogle, 93. 218 COMMON LAW REPORTS. T. T.[1853. Queen'sBench SWIFT v. SWIFT. (Queen's Bench.) Jun......