Boone v Eyre
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1779 |
| Date | 01 January 1779 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 96 E.R. 767
COURTS OF WESTMINSTER-HALL
S. C. 1 H. Bl. 273, n. Discussed, St. Albans v. Shore, 1789, 1 H. Bl. 279; Glazebrook v. Woodrow, 1799, 8 T. R. 372. Applied, Fothergill v. Walton, 1818, 8 Taunt. 583; 2 Moore, 639; Franklin v. Miller, 1836, 4 Ad. & E. 605; Lloyd v. Lloyd, 1837, 2 Myl. & Cr. 204. Not applied, Chanter v. Leese, 1838, 4 Mee. & W. 311. Explained, Hoare v. Rennie, 1859, 5 H. & N. 29. Referred to, M'Andrew v. Chapple, 1866, L. R. 1 C. P. 648. Doctrine not applied, Wilson v. Finch-Hatton, 1877, 2 Ex. D. 345; Bastin v. Bidwell, 1881, 18 Ch. D. 245. Referred to, Inman Steamship Company v. Bischoff, 1882, 7 App. Cas. 673; Societe Generale le Paris v. Milders, 1883, 49 L. T. 59.
boone t . evre. Non infregit conventionem not an issuable plea to a breach of covenant, assigned in the negative. If one party covenants to do one thing, the other party doing another, this is not a condition precedent, but a mutual covenant; and one cannot be pleaded in bar of the other. [S. C. 1 H. Bl. 273, n. Discussed, St. Allans v. Share, 1789, 1 H. Bl. 279; Glazebrook v. Woodrow, 1799, 8 T. R. 372. Applied, Fothergill v. Walton, 1818, 8 Taunt. 583; 2 Moore, 639 ; Franklin v. Miller, 1836, 4 Ad. & E. 605; Lloyd v. Lloyd, 1837, 2 Myl. & Cr. 204. Not applied, Chanter v. Leese, 1838, 4 Mee. & W. 311. Explained, Hoare v. Bennie, 1859, 5 H. & N. 29. Referred to, M'Andrew v. Chappie, 1866, L. R. 1 C. P. 648. Doctrine not applied, Wilson v. Finch-Hattm, 1877, 2 Ex. D. 345; Bastin. v. Bidwell, 1881, 18 Ch. D. 245. Referred to, Inman Steamship Company v. Bisdioff, 1882, 7 App. Cas. 673; Soditi Gdndrale le Paris v. Milders, 1883 49 L. T. 59.] In covenant, the plaintiff declares on a deed of sale, indented by him, made to the defendant on the 28th of February, 1775, of a plantation in the island of Dominica, with the negroes, &c. thereto belonging, in consideration of 5001. and an annuity of 1601., payable half yearly in London, for the lives of the plaintiff and his wife, and the survivor of them : and that the defendant covenanted with the plaintiff, that " he, the said John Boone, well, truly, and faithfully doing, fulfilling, and performing all and singular the covenants, clauses, recitals, and agreements in the said indenture contained," the defendant should pay the said annuity. And the plaintiff avers, that he hath well and truly performed, kept, and fulfilled all the covenants and agreements on his part, yet, (protesting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Totem Electric Ltd. v. Humford Developments Ltd. et al., (1986) 68 A.R. 217 (QBM)
...considered in the light of its own circumstances. There is, dating back to Lord Mansfield's judgment in Boone v. Eyre (1779), 2 B.W. 1312; 96 E.R. 767; 1 B1.H. 273n (a); 126 E.R. 160, a doctrine of substantial performance of entire contracts which relaxes the requirement of exact and precis......
-
Totem Eelectric Ltd. v. Humford Developments Ltd. et al., (1986) 68 A.R. 217 (QBM)
...considered in the light of its own circumstances. There is, dating back to Lord Mansfield's judgment in Boone v. Eyre (1779), 2 B.W. 1312; 96 E.R. 767; 1 B1.H. 273n (a); 126 E.R. 160, a doctrine of substantial performance of entire contracts which relaxes the requirement of exact and precis......
-
Boone v Eyre
...English Reports Citation: 126 E.R. 160 IN THE COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER Boone and Eyre See S. C. 2 W. Bl. 1312; 96 E. R. 767 (with note), to which add General Billposting Company v. Atkinson, [1909] A. C. 121. (a) Boone v. Eyre, B. E. East. 17 Geo. 3.* [See S. C. 2 W. Bl.......