Day against Edwards
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 June 1794 |
| Date | 25 June 1794 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 361
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
[648] day against edwakds. Wednesday, June 25th, 1794. An action on the case wherein the declaration charged that defendant so furiously drove his cart, that by his improper conduct it was driven with great force against the plaintiff's carriage, per quod the loss happened, cannot be supported; but the proper remedy is^trespass vi et armis. This was an action on the case, wherein the plaintiff declared, that whereas on a certain day he was possessed of a certain four-wheeled carriage called a landaulet, and of a horse drawing the same along the King's highway, called, &e. and the defendant on the same day, &c. was possessed of a certain cart and horse drawing the same along the highway aforesaid, and which were then and there under the direction of the said defendant, nevertheless the said defendant then and there so furiously, negligently and improperly drove the said cart and horse of him the said defendant, that by and through the furious, negligent, and improper conduct of the said defendant in that behalf, the said cart was then and there, to wit, &c. driven and struck with great force and violence upon and against the said carriage of the plaintiff, and thereby then and there overturned and damaged the same, to the loss of the plaintiff, &c. To this there was a special demurrer, assigning for causes, that' the plaintiff, by his said declaration, complained against the defendant as if the supposed cause of action in the declaration mentioned had been a mere consequential injury, whereas it appeared to have been an immediate and direct trespass committed by the defendant on the property of the plaintiff; that the plaintiff complained against the defendant, as in a plea of trespass on the case, whereas the declaration ought to have been in a plea of trespass-vi et armis: that the defendant was not, by the said declaration, positively charged with any of the facts therein contained, and the same were only charged by way of recital, whereas they ought to have been positively averred upon him; and also that it was not alleged that the supposed trespass was committed with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v Davis
...of Australia Pty Ltd v Carrigan's Hazeldene Pastoral Co (1958) 100 CLR 644 at 652. 171 (1800) 1 East 106 [ 102 ER 43]. 172Day v Edwards (1794) 5 TR 648 [ 101 ER 173Savignac v Roome (1794) 6 TR 125 [ 101 ER 470]. 174Turner v Hawkins (1796) 1 Bos & Pul 472 [ 126 ER 1016]. See also Brucker v ......
-
Williams v Holland
...done by the defendant, the remedy is in trespass.; where the injury is only consequential to an act before done, then it is in case. (6) 5 T. R. 648 The decision in that case was, that a plaintiff cannot declare in case fer so furiously driving a cart, that, by the improper conduct of the d......
-
Peter Scott & John Scott v Samuel Nelson
...1 Str. 634; 8 Mod. 272. Haward v. BankesENR 2 Burr. 1114. Scott v. Sheppard 3 Wils. 403. Leame v. BrayENR 3 East, 593. Day v. EdwardsENR 5 T.R.648. Courtney v. collet 1 Ld. Ray. 272. Savignac v. RoomeENR 6 T R. 125. Morley v. GainsfordENR 2 H. Bl. 442. Day v. EdwardsENR 5 T. R. 648. Chandle......
-
Byrne v O'Flaherty
...Boydell v. JonesENR 4 M. & W. 451. Ferguson v. MitchellENR 2 C. M. & R. 692. Day v. MuskettENR 2 Ld. Raym. 985. Day v. EdwardsENR 5 T. R. 648. Killikelly v. Kelly 5 Ir. Law Rep. 30. Hudson v. NicholsENR 5 M. & W. 437. Rafael v. Verelst 2 W. Bl. Rep. 1055. Earl of Shrewsbury's case 9 Co. 50.......