Collinge against Heywood
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 January 1839 |
| Date | 22 January 1839 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 1352
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 1 P. & D. 502; 2 W. W. & H. 107; 8 L. J. Q. B. 98. Not followed, Spark v. Heslop, 1859, 1 El. & El. 563. Referred to, Blyth v. Fladgate, [1891] 2 Ch. 362.
collinge against heywood. Tuesday, January 22d, 1839. On a contract to f3j-l.cn.l6i. indemnify a plaintiff against costs, which he is afterwards called upon to pay, the cause of action arises when he pays, not when the costs are incurred, or the attorney's bill delivered to such plaintiff. Therefore the Statute of Limitation , _ runs from the time of payment. [S. C. 1 P. & D. 502; 2 W. W. & H. 107; 8 L. J. Q. B. 98. Not followed, Spark v. ffeslop, 1839, 1 El. & El. 563. Referred to, Blyth v Fladgate, [1891] 2 Ch. 362.] Assumpsit. The declaration recited that Daniel Potter had distrained plaintiff's goods for rent; that defendant and John Whytel, for certain reasons which the declaration specified, were desirous that plaintiff should replevy, and prosecute an action of replevin against Potter for taking such distress ; and that, in consideration of the premises, and that plaintiff, at defendant's and Whytel's request, had replevied, and commenced an action of replevin (as above), defendant undertook and promised plaintiff " to save, defend, and keep harmless and indemnified the said plaintiff from the said distress, and all costs, damages, and expenses which he, the said plaintiff, had incurred or sustained, or should thereafter incur or sustain, by reason [634] thereof, or by reason of the replevying of the same, or of the said action of replevin so commenced aa aforesaid, or the prosecution thereof." Averment, that plaintiff prosecuted the action, &c., and, the plaint being removed, proceedings were had, &c. And that, although plaintiff necessarily incurred, laid out, and was obliged to pay, and did pay, divers, sums, &c. for costs and expenses of the replevin and of the action, &c. (notice to defendant, and request to him to indemnify), yet defendant, disregarding, &c., did not, nor would, when so requested, or at any time, save or defend plaintiff, or keep him harmless and indemnified from the premises or any part thereof, or from the payments, costs, and charges aforesaid, or any of them, or any part thereof, or from all or any damages in respect thereof, but therein failed, &c. Common counts for work and journies, money paid, &c., and on an account stated. Plea (among others not material here), that the causes of action did not accrue within six years. Verification. Traverse ; and issue thereon. On the trial before Bosanquet J., at the Chester Spring Assizes, 1837, it appeared that the plaintiffs action of replevin was commenced in 1825. The plaintiff put in a written agreement between himself on the one part, and defendant and John Whytel on the other, bearing date April 27th, 1826, whereby, after reciting that Potter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cape Distribution Ltd v Cape Intermediate Holdings Plc
...that the case cited in Halsbury's in support of the propositions relied on by Mr Kent QC and Mr Evans-Tovey, Collinge v Heywood (1839) 9 A. & E. 633, did not lay down "any principle of general application". They pointed out that McNair J also referred to a decision to the opposite effect, S......
-
Commonwealth of Australia v Cornwell
...v Westpac Banking Corporation (1991) 32 FCR 1 at 17–18, 24–26. 64 (1992) 175 CLR 514 at 518. 65Collinge v Heywood (1839) 9 Ad & E 633 [ 112 ER 1352]; Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Colonial Finance, Mortgage, Investment and Guarantee Corporation Ltd (1906) 4 CLR 57 at 66, 69; Walker v B......
-
Gardner v Brooke and Others
...v. Lord WincheheaENRUNK 1 Cox, 318; 2 B. & P. 270. Boulty v. Stubbs 18 Yes. 20. Browne v. Lee ENR 6 B. & C. 689. Collinge v. Heywood 9 A. & E. 633. Cruythorne v. Swinburne 14 Ves. 160, 164. Davies v. HumphriesENR 6 M. & W. 153. Dering v. Earl of Winehelsea ECASENRENR 1 W. & T. 114; 1 Cox, C......
- Kwong Yik (Selangor) Banking Corporation Ltd, The v The Malayan Daily Express (1926)Ltd, Yap Yow Ching, K Arumugam, Loh Kim Swi & M Cumarasami