Carrington v Roots
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1837 |
| Date | 01 January 1837 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 748
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. M. & H. 14; 6 L. J. Ex. 95; 1 Jur. 85. See Britain v. Rossiter, 1879, 11 Q. B. D. 128.
[248] careungton v. routs. Exch. of Pleas, 1M7.-Where a party had purchased, by a verbal contract, a growing crop of grass, with liberty to go on the close wherein it grew, for the purpose of cutting and carrying it away : - Held, that he could not maintain trespass against the seller for taking away his horse and cart from the close, which he had brought there for the purpose of 1 carrying; away the grass; for that this was, in substance, an action charging the i defendant on the contract, within s. 4 of the Statute of Frauds. A contract for ! the sale of an interest in land, without a note in writing, nuiy operate as a license, so as to excuse the entry of the purchaser on the land, but it cannot be made available in any way as a contract. [S. C. M. & H. 14; 0 L. J. Ex. 95; I Jur. H5. See Britain v. llossiter, 1879, 11 Q. B. D. 12K.J Trespass for seizing and impounding a horse and cart of the plaintiff's. Flea- that at the time when, &c. the defendant was lawfully possessed of a certain close, with the appurtenances, situate in the parish of St. John's, Hampstead, and was also possessed of a certain crop of grass there then growing and being; and that because th$ horsa and cart were wrongfully incumbering the close, and doing damage there, heitook and distrained the same, &c. There was another plea similar to this, except th$t it alleged that the defendant seized the horse and cart for the purpo.se of removing antl carrying away the cart from the said close. Replication, that before the said time when, &c., and while the said close and crop of grass were the close and grass of the defendant, to. wit, on &c., the defendant agreed to sell, and sold to the plaintitt', and tb.4 plaintiff then agreed to buy, and bought of the defendant, the said crop of grass, at and for a certain sum, to wit, at the rate of 51. 10s. per acre for each acre of the said grass, with liberty to the plaintiff' to cut the said grass, and take the same from the said close when fit to be cut and taken, and for that purpose to enter into and upon the said close with his horse and cart; by virtue of which agreement the plaintiff' afterwards, to wit, on, &c., entered into the possession of the said crop of grass, and became and continued possessed thereof until the defendant, before the said time whsen, &c., wrongfully took possession of a part of the said crop without the plaintiff''s 2M.&W. 249. OARRINOTON 1'. ROOTS 749 consent; and that the said crop of grass was fit to be cut and taken, and the plaintiff, for the purpose of cutting and taking away the said grass, before the said time when, &c., brought his said horse and cart into the said close, and upon the said crop of grass therein; wherefore the defendant committed the trespass of his own wrong, &c. There was a similar [249] replication to the other plea. The defendant, by his rejoinder, denied that he agreed to sell, or sold, or that the plaintiff agreed to buy, or bought, the grass, with liberty to him to cut or take it, or to enter into or upon the close with his horse arid cart; on which issue was joined. At the trial before Gurney, B., at the London (Sittings in last Michaelmas Term, it .appeared that in May last the plaintiff had verbally agreed with the defendant to buy of him a crop of grass growing in a field of four acres belonging to the defendant, near Hampstead, at the price of 51. 10s. per acre, to be cleared by the end of September. One of the terms of the bargain waa stated to be, that half the price should be paid down before the plaintiff cut siny of the grass ; and the plaintiff' not having paid this money, the defendant turned the plaintiff's horse and cart, out of the field, and prevented him from cutting or carrying away the grass, which was the trespass complained of. b'or the defendant, it was objected that, whether this were to be considered aa a sale of an interest in land or of goods, the action was not maintainable, for want of a memorandum in writing of the contract: and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duppa, Executor of Baskerville v Mayo
...void altogether; though it may operate as a license, so as to excuse the entry of the purchaser on the land, if not countermanded. 2 Mees. & W. 248.] Still, it has been held in C. P. 2 Brod. & Bing. 362, Peacock v. Purvis, that even in a plea, a sale of growing crops [assuming the case to f......
-
Savage v Canning
...B. 858. Kelly v. WebsterENR 12 C. B. 283. Buttermere v. HayesENR 5 M. & W. 456. Vaughan v. HancockENR 3 C. B. 766. Carrington v. RootsENR 2 M. & W. 248. Reid v. LambENR 6 Ex. 130. Falmouth v. ThomasENR 3 Tyr. 26; 1 Cr. & M. 89. Harvey v. GrahamUNK 6 Nev. & M. 762. Planche v. ColburnENR 8 Bi......
-
Jones against Flint
...continue on the land; and the case, therefore, resembles Earl of Falmauth v. Thomas (1 C. & M. 89. 3 Tyrwh. 26), and Carrington v. Soots (2 M, & W. 248), where the contract was held to be for an interest in land. [Coleridge J. In Earl of Falmouth v. Thomas (1 C. & M. 89. 3 Tyrwh. 26), the p......
-
Leroux v Brown
...be brought" relate not to mere matter of procedure only, but go to the very root and inception of the thing. In Carrington v. Boots, 2 M. & W. 248,-which was an action in which the plaintiff set up a verbal contract for the purchase of growing crops,-Lord Abinger said: "If this be a contrac......