Browning v Morris
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 May 1778 |
| Date | 18 May 1778 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 98 E.R. 1364
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY AND COMMON PLEAS
browning versus morris. Monday, May 18th, 1778. Money paid by the insurer or lettery-office-keeper, in consequence of having insured the defendant's tickets, cannot be recovered back. But the premiums of insurance, paid by the insured, to the lottery-office-keeper, may. Jpon shewing cause why the verdict found in this case, for the plaintiff, should not be vacated, and a nonsuit entered in its stead; Lord Mansfield reported in substance as follows : This was an action for money had and received. The plaintiff [791] and defendant were both lottery-office-keepers; and during the drawing of the lottery, entered into an agreement mutually to insure the number of a ticket with each other, upon condition, that he whose number should be drawn on the day next following the agreement, should receive from the other an undrawn ticket, or the value of it at the market price. The defendant's number being drawn, he chose the price of an undrawn ticket, which came to 141. 3a. and received that sum from the plaintiff. The next day, each insured another number upon the same terms. And so the contract was continued from day to day. It afterwards happened, that the plaintiff'* number was drawn ; when the defendant, instead of complying with the terms of the agreement as the plaintiff had done, refused to give the plaintiff either an undrawn ticket or the value of it. Neither of them had any tickets in their possession, the consequence of which is, that the contract was illegal, and against the statute. The question is, whether the plaintiff is entitled, in disamrmance of the contract^ to recover back the sum which he has paid upon this illegal transaction? This case was argued on Saturday, May 18th, in this term.-Mr. Wallace, who shewed cause, argued, that the plaintiff in this case, was in the same situation as a person who has paid usurious interest upon a corrupt and illegal contract, for which an action for money had and received will clearly lie. That the stat. 17 Geo. 3, c. 46, by which this species of contract is prohibited, imposes the penalty only on the insurer, which the defendant was in this case, and not on the insured ; and cited the case of Jaques versus Golightly, Pasch. 16 Geo. 3, C. B. where, it was adjudged, that a person who had paid a lottery-office-keeper several sums of money, as the premium for insuring a number of tickets, was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Goh Teik Yah; Loo Seong Thye
-
Palmer (Garnett) v Prince Golding and Etta Golding (Deceased after litigation commenced)
...then the court will not assist him in his cause of action'. " 80Then Lord Morris continued thus at page 154: "In his judgment in Browning v Morris [1778] 2 CWP 790 Lord Mansfield said: 'But, where contracts or transactions are prohibited by positive statutes, for the sake of protecting one ......
-
DR Insurance Company v Central National Insurance Company of Omaha [QBD (Comm)]
... ... Beresford v Royal InsuranceELR [1938] AC 586 ... BP Exploration Ltd v HuntWLR [1976] 1 WLR 788 ... Browning v MorrisENR (1778) 2 Cowp 790 ... Cavalier Insurance Co, ReUNK [1989] 2 Ll Rep 430 ... Citadel Insurance Co v Atlantic Union Insurance Co ... The question was whether they had authority to do so. Mr Hamilton relied in part on a passage from Dicey & Morris (11th edn) which itself refers to the decision in Cromie v MooreUNK [1936] 2 All ER 177 , but I do not think that that passage is really directed to ... ...
-
Rogers v Louth County Council
... ... being imposed on him specially for the protection of the other - then they are not in pari delicto and the money can be recovered back; see Browning v. Morris, by Lord Mansfield. Likewise, if the responsibility for the mistake lies more on the one than the other becaue he has misled the other when ... ...