Eccles v Southern
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1863 |
| Date | 01 January 1863 |
| Court | Assizes |
English Reports Citation: 176 E.R. 64
Nisi Prius
Middlesex Sittings, Easter Term, 1861, coram Channell, B eccles v southern (A sub-contractor, suing the employer for work extra the original contract, must put in that contract, if in writing, and also prove a separate and distinct contract with the employer to do the work sued for ) Action for work and materials Plea : never indebted. Milward (with him Giffard) for the plaintiff. Monk and Kemplay for the defendant The woik was stone-work done by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff being called, atated that one Tnmlet had made a contract in writing with the defendant to do work at a certain asylum, but that the work for which this action was brought was quite distinct from the work under that contract, and under a separate contract with the defendant. Channell, B , thereupon ruled that the contract between Tnmlet and the defendant need not at present be produced iThe plaintiff, on cross-examination, said that this work was " extras on Tnmlet's contract; " that Tnmlet contracted with Southern, the defendant, for certain work , that then he, the plaintiff, contracted with Tnmlet to take it under him, and got the quantities from him, and was to [143] pay him a small sum for it. Trimlet told him ie had contracted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Issa Nicholas [Grenada Ltd] Appellant v Electrotec Services Ltd Respondent [ECSC]
...must put in that contract if in writing, and also prove a separate and distinct contract with the employer to do the work sued for.Eccles v Southern [1861] 3F&F 142, NP." The Background 15 Mr. lmtiaz Hosein, a civil engineer and a director of PCA, gave evidence for the respondent. He stated......