Earl of Falmouth v Thomas
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 149 E.R. 326
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
earl of falmouth v. thomas. Exch. of Pleas. 1SH2.-Declaration stated that the plaintiff was possessed of a farm, upon which were certain growing crops, and on which the plaintiff had done certain work and labour, and expended certain materials in making the lands ready for tillage, of which work, labour, and materials he the plaintiff had not derived the benefit; and that, in consideration that the plaintiff' would let the farm to the defendant for fourteen years, the defendant undertook to take the crops, and pay for them, and for the work, labour, and materials, according to a valuation : averments-that plaintiff let the farm accordingly, and left the crops upon it; and that the defendant took possession of the farm, and had the benefit of the work, labour, and materials ; and that the valuation was made, but that defendant did not pay. -Plea-that the crops, and the benefit of the work, labour, and materials, were not excepted or reserved out of the letting or agreement to let, and that there was no agreement in writing, in respect of those causes of action, or any memorandum or note thereof, signed by the defendant, or any parson by him lawfully authorized :^ 'Held, on qemurrer, that the contract was for an interest in land, and that the iright to the crops, and the benefit of the work and labour, were both of them an interest in: land, within the 4th section of the Statute of Frauds.-To an indebitatus count for crops bargained and sold, and under and by virtue of such ibargain and sale, accepted and taken, and had and received and cut down by the defendant,; defendant pleaded that the crops, at the time of the bargain and sale, to. &M.90. EARL OF FALMOUTH V. THOMAS 327 were growing upon and affixed to certain lands ; and that before the bargain and sale there was a treaty on foot between the plaintiff and the defendant, by which it was proposed that the plaintiff should let the lands to the defendant, and that the defendant should take therewith the said crops ; and that the defendant assented to the treaty; and that, in order to carry the treaty into effect, the supposed bargain and sale was verbally contracted between the plaintiff and defendant; and that there was no agreement in writing, or any memorandum or note thereof:-Held, that the crops were, at the time of the bargain and sale, an interest in the land, and that the case was within the Statute of Frauds.- Same point held on a similar plea to a count for work, labour, and materials.-In indebitatus assumpsit upon an account stated defendant pleaded, that before the taking of the account there was a verbal agreement for the sale of certain crops growing upon the plaintiffs land, and for work, labour, and materials, done and used in preparing the land for tillage; and that there was a treaty for the plaintiff's letting and the defendant's taking the land for fourteen years, to which the defendant assented ; and that the money to be paid for the crops, and the work, labour, and materials, was the money concerning which the account was stated; and that there was no agreement in writing, or any note thereof. To this plea the plaintiff replied, that, before the account was stated, the defendant had mown the urops and taken them to his own use, and had and received the amount of the work and labour and materials. The defendant rejoined, traversing that he had cut down the crops, and received the amount of the work and labour, &c., before the stilting of the account. General demurrer:-Held, that the contract, as appearing on the pleadings, was within the Statute of Frauds, and that the- plaintiff could not recover.-In assumpsit on a promise to manage a farm in a good and husband-like manner, and according to the custom of the country : -Semble, thafc it is sufficient to assign a breach in the words of the promise. [S, C. 3 Tyr. 26; 2 L. J. Ex. 57. Applied, Harvey v. Gmbhani, LS3G, 5 A. & E. 74; 6 N. & M. 154; 2 H. &'W. 146.] Aasumpsit. The first count of the declaration stated, that before the malting of the promise thereinafter [90] mentioned, the plaintiff had been and was lawfully possessed of, and entitled to, a certain farm, lands, and premises, upon which farm, lands, and premises, certain crops of corn and turnips of the said plaintiff, of great value, were then growing and being, and upon divers parts of which said farm, lands, and premises, he, the said plaintiff, had before then, by his servants, done, performed, and bestowed certain work and labour, and used and expended certain materials in and about the preparing and making the same ready for tillage, of which said work and labour and materials he, the said plaitltiff, at the time of the making of the promise of the defendant thereinafter mentioned, had not derived the benefit, to wit, at &c. And, thereupon, theretofore, to wit, on &c., in consideration that the plaintiff', at the special instance and request of the defendant, would let to him, the defendant, the said farri, lands, and premises, with the appurtenances, excepting and reserving as in that bishalE agreed upon, for a certain term, to wit, the term of fourteen yeans, from the 29thlday of September, in the year 1S27, and upon certain terms in that behalf agreed upon ; he, the defendant, undertook, and then and there promised the plaintiff', to take the said growing crops, and pay and allow him for the same, arid for the said work, aitd labour, and materials, according to a valuation thereof to be made by certain persons, to wit, a curtain person to be appointed by and on behalf of the said plaintiff', and a certain other person to be appointed by and on behalf of the said defendant, to value the aame. And the plain tit) averred, that he, confiding &c., did afterwards let to the said defendant the said farm, lands, and premises, with the appurtenances, for the said term, aud upon the terms aforesaid, excepting and reserving as in that behalf agreed upon ; aud did leave on the said premises the said crops so growing aud being thereon :as aforesaid ; and that the defendant did then and there take possession of the said;farm, lands, and premises, and of the [91] said crops so then and there growing thereon ,as aforesaid ; and that the defendant had and received the benefit of the said work aijd labour and materials, and took the said crops to his awn use, to wib, at &c. And the plaintiff further averred, that afterwards the said growing crops, work and labour, and materials, were fairly valued by one J. D., a person for that purpose duly appointed by and on behalf of the plaintiff, and one W. P., a person for that purpose 328 EARL OF FALMOUTH V. THOMAS 1 C. & M. 92. duly appointed by and on the behalf of the defendant, at a certain sum of money, to wit, 1471. 13s. Of all which premises the defendant had notice, and was then and there requested to pay the sum of 1471. 13s. to the plaintiff. Breach for non-payment of that sum. The second count was similar to the first, to the end of the valuation by ,T. D. and W. P., and the averment of notice. It then proceeded as follows:-And the said plaintiff further saith, that after such valuation had been so made, to wit, on &c., it wag agreed between the plaintiff' and the defendant that the said crops, work arid labour, and materials, should be again valued by certain other persons, to wit, one R. J. on behalf of the plaintiff, and one T. H. on behalf of the defendant; and thereupon afterwards, in consideration that the said plaintiff, at the like instance and request of the defendant, had undertaken and promised the defendant to accept and receive of and from the defendant the amount at which the said crops, work, and labour, should be valued by the said R. J. and T. H., instead of the said sum of 1471. 13s. at which the said crops &c. had been so valued as aforesaid, he the defendant undertook and promised the plaintiff to pay and allow him for the said crops, &c., according to such valuation so to be made as last-mentioned ; and the plaintiff averred, that, afterwards, the said growing crops, &c., were valued by the said E. J. and T. H. at a certain sum of money, to wit, the sum of 1701. :is., of all which premises the defendant afterwards, to wit, on (fee., at &c., had notice, and was then and there requested to pay the [92] said sum of I 701. 3s. to the plaintiff; concluding with a breach as in the first count, substituting 1701. 3s. for 1471. 13s. The third count was similar to the first count, to the statement of the agreement, which it stated as follows :-And thereupon heretofore, to wit, on &c., in consideration that the plaintiff, at the like instance and request of the defendant, would agree to let to him the defendant the said farm, lands, and premises, for a certain term of years, to wit, the term of fourteen years, from the 29th day of September, in the year of our Lord 1827, and upon certain terms, excepting and reserving as in that behalf agreed upon, and would suffer and permit the said defendant to enter upon and take possession of the said farm, lands, and premises, and to take and have the said growing crops to his own use and benefit, and to have and enjoy the benefit of the said work and labour and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v Marshall
...G. 644. Brooks v. Bockett 9 Q. B. 847. Harrison v. Turner 10 Q. B. 482. Eastwood v. KenyonENR 11 Ad. & E. 438. Lord Falmouth v. ThomasENR 1 Cr. & M. 89. Mallet v. BatemanELR Law Rep. 1 C. P. 163. Cocking v. WardENR 1 C. B. 858. Forth v. StantonENR 1 Wms. Saund. 211, c. Newhall v. HoltENR 6 ......
-
Savage v Canning
...114. Harman v. ReeveENR 18 C. B. 587. Gray v. Hill Ry. & M. 420. Neal v. Viney 1 Champ. 471. Earl of Falmouth v. ThomasENR 3 Tyr. 26; 1 Cr. & M. 89. Corrigan v. Woods 1 Ir. Rep. C. L. 73. Franklin v. MillerENR 4 Ad. & E. 606. Avery v. BowdenENR 5 E. & B. 714. Reed v. HoskinsENR 5 E. & B. 72......
-
Jones against Flint
...the crops, which include the grass growing, were to continue on the land; and the case, therefore, resembles Earl of Falmauth v. Thomas (1 C. & M. 89. 3 Tyrwh. 26), and Carrington v. Soots (2 M, & W. 248), where the contract was held to be for an interest in land. [Coleridge J. In Earl of F......
-
Power v St. George
...Nichol and anotherUNK 4 Scott, N. R. 48. Wain v. WaltersENR 5 East, 10. Mechelen v. Nugent 7 Adol. & E1. 49. Lord Falmouth v. ThomasENR 1 Cr. & M. 89 ; S. C. 3 Tyr. 26. Goss v. Lord Nugent 5 . & Ad. 58. Hubert v. Turner 4 Scott, N. C. 486. Cocking v. Ward M. G. & Scott,858. Bentham v. Hardi......