Davies v Davies

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date05 March 1841
Date05 March 1841
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 752



Shropshire Assizes (Civil Side), before Mr. Justice Williams da vies v. davies. (A and his wife boarded and lodged in the house of B. the brother of A , and both A. and his wife assisted B. in carrying on his business A. brought an action for the services, to which B. pleaded a set-off for board and lodging --Held, that neither the services on the one hand, nor the board and lodging on the other, could be charged for unless the jury were satisfied that the parties came together on the terms that they were to pay and to be paid , but, that if that were not so, no eji post facto charge could be made on either side.) [Subsequent proceedings, post, p. 252.] (a) See the case Rex v. Chapman, ante, vol. viii. p. 558. 9 OAR, * P. 88. REGmA V. MORRIS 753 Assumpsit. - The first count of the declaration was on a promissory note made by the defendant for £80, payable to the plaintiff or his order on demand, with interest st 4 pet cent. There were also counts for work and labour by the plaintiff and his wife, as servants of the defendant, and foi money lent, and on an account stated. Pleas - first, as to all but the promissory note, non assumpsit ; second, to the whole declaration a plea of payment ; and third, to the whole declaration a plea of set-off for boaid and lodging of the plaintiff and his wife. It was opened by Taliourd, Serjt., for tke plaintiff. - That the plaintiff and defendant were brothers, and that the promissory note was given by the defendant to the plaintiff for the balance of his share of the effects of their mother, to which the plaintiff was entitled on her death ; [88} and that, with respect to the charge for services, it would be shewn that the plaintiff had lived with the defendant at his house, which was a public-house, at Sneds Hill, from the 22nd of May, 1837, till the 4th of October in that year, and assisted in the business ; and that the plaintiff then married, and from that time till the 4th of November the plaintiff and his wife both lived there, and both of them assisted in the business and in the housekeeping Against this item the deiendant made a claim, by his set-off, for their board and lodging. Williama, J. - Neither the services an the one hand, nor the board and lodging on the other, can be charged for, unless the ]ury are satisfied that there was a contract, express or implied. That is, that the parties came there on the terms that they were te pay and to be paid ; but if that was not so, there can be no ex pout facto charge made on either side. The item lor services was abandoned on the one side, and the item for board and lodging on the other ; and the case proceeded on the plea of payment. Verdict for the defendant. Talfourd, Serjt., and Carrington, for the plaintiff. B. V. Richards and Whateley, for tke defendant. [Attornies - Wallmgton, and Stanley & Heaue.] In the ensuing term, Talfourd, Serjt. ä applied to the Court of Exchequer for a new trial, on affidavits, and the Court granted a rule, which was afterwards made absolute on payment of costs.

English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 823


To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Liddell v Norton
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 5 December 1855
    ...purchasers to compare the abstract with the original; Mertins v. Jolliffe (Amb. 311).; Parker v. Brooke (9 Ves. 586); Davits v. Dairies (4 Beav. 54). [THE master of the rolls. I think you need not go into that, for if they had notice of the will, they had notice of ita contents. I really do......
  • Coates v Kenna
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal in Chancery (Ireland)
    • 24 January 1873
    ...COATES and KENNA. Beaumont v. Bramby T. & R. 41. Daniel v. Davison 16 Ves. 249. Bailey v. RichardsonENR 9 hare, 734. Davies v. DaviesENR 4 Beav. 54. Agra Bank v. Barry I. R. 6 Eq. 128. Le Neve v. Le NeveENR Amb. 436. Thompson v. SimpsonUNK 1 D. & War. 459, at p. 487. Rolland v. HartELR L. R......
  • Duckett v Thompson
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • 3 December 1883
    ...13 Sim. 445. In Loch v. BagleyELR L. R. 4 Eq. 122. Rochford v. Fitzmaurice 2 Dr. & War. 1; 1 Conn. & L. 158. In Davies v. DaviesENR 4 Beav. 54. In Alt v. AltENR 4 Giff. 84. Viret v. Viret 50 L. J. Ch. 69. Will — Bequest to unmarried woman — Executory trust — Direction for settlement of lega......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT