Cutting against Williams
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1796 |
| Date | 01 January 1796 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 87 E.R. 1160
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS, EXCHEQUER.
case 203. cutting against williams. If a declaration contain two counts, one upon a note of hand upon the custom of merchants, and the other upon an indebitatus assumpsit, and the jury give several damages, but the judgment is entered, "that the plaintiff recover his damages by the mid jurors in form aforesaid assessed, which in the whole amount to so much, &c." the judgment is void in toto; for previous to the 3 & 4 Anne, c. 9, a note of hand was not within the custom of merchants; and where one of several counts is bad, and an entire judgment is given, it cannot be reversed in part only.-S. C. 2 Ld. Ray. 825. S. C. 11 Mod. 24. S. C. 1 Salk. 24. S. C. Holt, 273. S. C. Lilly Ent. 227. Error of a judgment in the Court of Common Pleas. The declaration contained several counts, and one of them was upon the custom of merchants, upon a note given by the defendant to the plaintiff, promising to pay him so much money. Several damages were given, but there was only one judgment for the plaintiff below for the several damages. It was assigned for error, that the count upon the custom of merchants was void; and therefore there being one entire judgment, all was void, and that the judgment ought to be reversed in toto. And the case of Martin v. Clerk (a) was quoted as an authority in point. Note here, Both the damages were cast up together, and judgment entered for them, with a qiue in tola se attingunt to so much, that is, quod recuperet damna sua prcedict, assess, quce in toto se attingunt to so much, which total comprehends both the damages. To maintain that the judgment ought to be reversed only in part, the ease of Jacob v. Mills (b), of Peck v. Ambler (c), and of Rymer v. Grimstone (d), were urged. But on the other side was quoted the case of Lloyd v. Pearce (e), a judgment in point to the contrary four years after, where the judgments are distinct and upon distinct laws; as in dower, where the judgment for recovery of the dower is by common law, and to recover damages by the Statute of Marlbridge, or in a quare impedit; for there is judgment for the church at common law, and for damages by the statute; and in that case, [155] judgment may stand for one, and be reversed for the other (/). An action was brought upon several promises, and several damages assessed, and one judgment given for both ; and upon a writ of error it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v Tyndall
...14 Sim. 639. Beer v. BeerENR 12 C. B. 60. Tippet v. HawkeyENR 3 Mod. 264. Copland v. Laporte 3 Ad.& Ell. 517. Robinson v. WalkerENRENR 7 Mod. 154; 1 Salk. 393. James v. EmeryENR 5 Prices, 533; 2 Moore, 195. James v. EmeryENR 2 Moore, 195. Levy v. SaleUNK 37 L. T. (N. S.) 709. Landlord and t......
-
Anonymous (1795) 1 Salk 402
...another point. 11. cutting versus williams. hill. 1 ann. B. E. vide this case, title action sur le case sur assumpsit, pag. 24, pla. 8. 7 mod. 154. English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 347 COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER. Attwood and Burr Mich. 1 Ann. B. R. 2 Ld. ......
-
Cutting against Wilkins
...contain two counts, one good and the other bad; an entire judgment that the plaintiff do recover his damages aforesaid, is erroneous.-S. C. 7 Mod. 154. S. C. Salk. 24. S. C. Lilly, Ent. 227. S. C. Holt, 273. The plaintiff in the original action counts upon a note payable to him or order, (/......