Crosse v Seaman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 November 1851 |
| Date | 25 November 1851 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 138 E.R. 350
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
crosse v. seaman. May 2, 1851. It is no ground for a suggestion under the London small debts act, 10 & 11 Viet. c. Ixxi. s. 113, that the debt has been reduced below 201. by a payment into court under a plea of tender. Debt, for work and labour and materials, money paid, and money due upon an account stated, the sum sought to be recovered being 261. 5s. 6d. The defendant pleaded,-first, never indebted,-secondly, except as to 71. 15s., payment,-thirdly, as to that sum, a tender before action brought. The plaintiff took the 71. 15s. out of court, and, at the trial before Maule, J., at the first sitting in London in the present term, obtained a verdict for 181. 6s. 5d. Brewer, upon an affidavit containing all the necessary allegations, now moved for a rule to shew cause why a suggestion should not be entered, to deprive the plaintiff of costs, under the London small debts act, 10 & 11 Viet. c. Ixxi. s. 113, relying upon Twnerv. Berry (1 L. M. &P. 744), where the debt had been reduced by payment before action brought. [Cresswell, J. Could the plaintiff have sued for the 261. 5s. 6d. in the county-court 1] No. [Cresswell, J. Was he entitled to have 261. 5s. 6d. at the time of action brought 1] Yes; but he was not entitled to bring an action for that sum. This is dif-[885]-ferent from, the case of payment of money into court, where the defendant would have to pay the costs up to the time of payment; whereas, tender is an absolute bar. [Williams, J. A tender is no bar to the action, in debt or assumpsit.] Suppose the whole sum due had been tendered, the plaintiff must have failed in the action. The action, therefore, was not well brought as to the 71. 15s. jervis, C. J. I think there ought to be no rule. Tender and set-off are not like payment. The plaintiff cannot know that the defendant will set up his tender or his set-off. The rest of the court concurring, Eule refused (a). (a) See Heaward v. Hopkins, 2 Dougl. 448; Waistdl v. Atkinson, 3 Bing. 289, 11 J. B. Moore, 14; Dowries v. May, 1 Har. & W. 649. But see Jordan v. Strong, 5 M. & Selw. 196.
English Reports Citation: 138 E.R. 577
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 2 L. M. & P. 273. See O'Rorke v. M'Donnell, 1862, 13 Ir. C. L. R. App. Xviii., xxvii.
[524] crosse v. seaman. Nov. 25, 1851. [S. C. 2 L. M. & P. 273. See ffSorke v. McDonnell, 1862, 13 Ir. C. L. E. App. xviii., xxvii.] plaintiff who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Myers v Phelan and Others
...362. Richards v. BluckENR 6 C. B. 443. Boulding v. TylerENR 3 B. & S. 472. O,Donnell. V. CallananUNK 20 L. R. Ir. 444. Crosse v. SeamanENR 11 C. B. 524. Hewitt v. CoryELR L. R. 5 Q. B. 418. Shrapnel v. LaingELR 20 Q. B. Div. 334. Danby v. Lamb 11 C. B. (N.S.)423. Myers v. Defries 5 Ex. Div.......
-
Donnelly v Verschoyle
...S.) 790 at p. 793. (5) 17 I. C. L. R. 195. (6) 1 H. & C. 615. (7) I. R. 3 C. L. 373. (8) I. R. 5 C. L. 412. (9) 4 I. C. L. R. 314. (10) 11 C. B. 524. (11) 9 M. & W. (12) [1902] 2 I. R. 315. (1) 4 I. C. L. R. 314. (2) I. R. 5 C. L. 412. (3) I. R. 5 C. L. 568. (4) I. R. 6 C. L. 161. (5) 26 L.......
-
Arkins v Armstrong
...ARKINS and ARMSTRONG. Crosse v. SeamanENR 11 C. B. 524. Hughes v. GuinnessUNK 4 Ir. C. L. R. 314. Devine v. London and North-Western Railway Co.UNK 17 Ir. C. L. R. 174. Walsh v. WalshUNK 17 Ir. C. L. R. 195. Blackmore v. HiggsENR 15 C. B. N. S. 790. Smith v. HarnorENR 3 C. B. N. S. 829. Hug......
-
Leonard v Brownrigg
...N. S. 378. Owens v. Vanhomrigh 10 Ir. Jur. N. S. 297. Doyle, Appellant, Fenlon, Respondent 1 Cr. & Dix., C. C. 67. Crosse v. SeamanENR 11 C. B. 524. Devine v. London and North-Western Railway CompanyUNK 17 Ir. C. L. R. 174. Motion grantedUNK This Agrees with the decision of the Court of Com......