Dixon v willoughs
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 387
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER.
Mich. 8 Will. 3, B. R.
2 salke1d, 446. money 387 [446] money. dixon versus willoughs. [Mich. 8 Will. 3, B. E.] See 1 Salk. 25. 2 Keb. 463. Latch, 84. Yelv. 80, &c. infra. Indebitatus assumpsif in 131. 10a. for nine guineas, well. Latch, 84. Yelv. 80, 135. Poph. 28. Cro. Car. 515. Palm. 407. 5 Mod. 6, 7. Lutw. 487, 488. 1 Salk. 9, 22, 25, S. C. Ante, 311. 3 Salk. 239. Holt 471. Cases B. E. 100. Comb. 327, 387, S. C. Vide Co. Lit. 107 a. but note 1, to Co. Lit. 107 b. In case upon four several promises, there was a verdict for the plaintiff, and entire damages. It was moved in arrest of judgment, that one of the promises was ill laid, viz. that whereas the defendant was indebted to him in 131. 10s. for nine guineas, he promised to pay, &c., and says not,'nine guineas ad valorem, &c., as he ought, the value being not ascertained by proclamation. Et per Holt, C.J. : 1st, Any piece of money coined at the Mint is of value as it bears a proportion to other current money, and that without proclamation. The unit was the old piece, which was 20s. In King James the First's time, the unit was by proclamation raised 16d., which was the reason and occasion of the coin of guineas, and of their being 16d. short of the unit. 2dly, There are guineas of 40s. a-piece, and so we will intend these were, and that the plaintiff was satisfied the rest. 3dly, That it was not necessary to set forth the number of the guineas ; for in an indebitatus assumpsit the consideration is only set forth to shew it was not a debt by bond, &c.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Calidad Pty Ltd v Seiko Epson Corporation
-
Anonymous. in B. B
...Sell, 1 Saund. 74, note (1). Waldock v. Cooper, 2 Wils. 16. Trevor v. Wall, 1 Term Rep. 151. Dunn v. Crump, 3 Brod. & Bing. 309. (b) Fid. 2 Salk. 446. 2 Saund. 350, note (2) in the case of Peters v. Opie. Another reason is given in Cro. Jac. 642. The cause of the debt may be omitted, where ......