Callisher v Bischoffsheim
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1865 |
| Date | 1865 |
| Year | 1865 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
Consideration - Forbearance to sue - Compromise of Liability - Demurrer.
The compromise of a disputed claim made bonâ fide is a good consideration for a promise, even although it ultimately appears that the claim was wholly unfounded.
Declaration, that the plaintiff had alleged that certain moneys were due to him from the Government of H., and was about to take proceedings to enforce payment, and thereupon, in consideration that the plaintiff would forbear taking such proceedings for an agreed time, the defendant promised to deliver to the plaintiff certain debentures. Breach, that defendant did not deliver the debentures.
Plea, that at the time of making the agreement no money was due to the plaintiff from the Government of H.:—
Held, on demurrer, that the plea was no answer to the declaration.
DECLARATION, that the plaintiff had alleged that certain moneys were due and owing to him, to wit, from the Government of Honduras, and from Don Carlos Gattierez, and others, and had threatened and was about to take legal proceedings against the said government and persons to enforce payment of the same; and thereupon, in consideration that the plaintiff would forbear from taking such proceedings for an agreed time, the defendant promised to deliver to the plaintiff certain securities, to wit, bonds or debentures, called Honduras Railway Loan Bonds, for sums to the amount of 600l., immediately the bonds should be printed. Averment, that the plaintiff did not take any proceedings during the agreed period, or at all; and that all conditions had been fulfilled necessary to entitle him to sue in respect of the matters before stated. Breach, that the defendant had not delivered to the plaintiff the bonds, or any of them.
Plea, that at the time of making the alleged agreement no moneys were due and owing to the plaintiff from the government and other persons.
Demurrer and joinder.
James, Q.C. (Rose with him), in support of the demurrer. The plea is bad, and affords no answer to the declaration, which discloses a good cause of action. The consideration for the plaintiff's promise or contract is sufficient; it is sufficient if the contractor, or some third person, avoids some detriment or injury; here the annoyance and expense of an action are avoided. In Llewellyn v. LlewellynF1 the declaration alleged that there were disputes concerning accounts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ong & Co Pte Ltd v Ong Choon Huat Watson
... ... `s The Law and Practice of Compromise ; Knowles v Roberts ; Holsworthy Urban District Council v Holsworthy Rural District Council and Callisher v Bischoffsheim ) ... (3) As an unimpeached compromise represents the end of a dispute, it matters not whether, as alleged by the ... ...
- Arab-Malaysian Finance Bhd; Lori (M) Bhd (Interim Receiver)
- Bong Kee Man; Pui Miaw
-
Shunmugam Jayakumar and Another v Jeyaretnam JB and Another
...vexatious: at [51]. Augustine Zacharia Norman v Goh Siam Yong [1992] 1 SLR (R) 746; [1992] 1 SLR 767 (folld) Callisher v Bischoffsheim (1870) LR 5 QB 449 (folld) Dummer v Brown [1953] 1 QB 710 (folld) Gale v Superdrug Stores plc [1996] 1 WLR 1089 (distd) Gordon Berkeley Jones v Clement John......
-
Consideration and Form
...QB), aff’d [1996] 10 WWR 689 (Man CA), leave to appeal to SCC refused, [1996] 10 WWR 689 (SCC). See also Callisher v Bischoffsheim (1870), LR 5 QB 449; Miles , above note 71 at 291–92, Bowen LJ; British Columbia (Attorney General) v Deeks Sand & Gravel Co Ltd , [1956] SCR 336 at 343–46, Kel......