Briston and Others, Assignees, & v Eastman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1820 |
| Date | 01 January 1820 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 160
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S C. 1 Esp 172 Followed, Cowern v Nerld, [1912] 2 K B 419 Considered, Stocks v Welson, [1913] 2 K B 235, R Leslie, Ltd v Sherl [1914] 3 K B 607 Referred to, Re Seager, 1889, Seely v Briggs, 60 L T 665
[291] bristow and others, assignees, &o v eastman Assunipsit for money had and received, lies against an infant to recover money embezzled by him Comme *ejnble ) [S C. 1 Esp 172 Followed, Couvnt'v Neild, [1912] 2KB 419 Considered, Xtocksv W thon, [1913] 2 KB 235, R Leslie, Ltd v~ Mted [1914] 3KB HOT Referred to, Re fieager, 1889, tieely v Bnggs, 60 L T 665 j This was an action for money had aud received to the use of the bankrupts before they became bankrupts The defendant had been apprentice to the bankrupts, who were merchants, and, during his apprenticeship, had been entrusted by them to make entries at the Customhouse, and pay other sums of money on their account He had frequently charged larger hums of money than those [292] he actually paid, and the present action was brought to recover back the overcharges The defendant attempted to defend himself, on account of his being an intant at the time Lord Kenyon said the question was new, and had not been decided , but he was of opinion that this action, though in form arising ex conttactu, in fact arose ejr dehcto, and as he could not have defended himself by reason of his infancy if an action of trover had been brought for the money, so he ought not to be permitted to defend himself on that ground, in this action (a)'2 (a)1 Sed vide Walker and Chapman, cited Dougl 454, in which case the plaintiff was permitted to recover back the money, because the contract remained executory In Norman v. Cole, 3 Esp 253, Lord Eldon (/ J held, that money deposited by A. in the hands of B. for the purpose of being paid over to C for his interest in soliciting a pardon for a person under sentence of death, could not be recovered back in an action by A. against B It does not appear from the report whether the money had been paid over by B to C , or whether C. had used any endeavours to obtain the pardon. (6) Wilkinson v Kitchen, 1 Lord Raym. 89, over-ruled in Smith v. Bickmore, 4 Taunt. 476. (c) Vide Lacaus.sade v White, IT Rep 535, Heivson v Hancock, AT Rep 575; and Vandyck v Hewit, 1 East, 96 The cases on this subject are collected by Mr Serj. Frere m his edition of Douglas, 471, note F 3, and 697, a note F 7...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pickard v Bonner, Esq
...those who undertook to defend the parish against the indictment not to have put in a special plea to that purpose." 160 BRISTOW V. EASTMAN PEAKE 291. But Lord Kenyon said, that had it been proved that this was a transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant, the money could not, accor......