Fallowes against Taylor. [in the COURT of KING'S BENCH.]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 February 1798 |
| Date | 05 February 1798 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 1085
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Questioned, Keir v. Leeman, 1846, 9 Q. B. 393; Winhill Local Board v. Vint, 1890, 45 Ch. D. 356.
7T.K.476. FALLOWES V. TAYLOR 1085 fallowes against taylor. Monday, Feb. 5th, 1798. A bond given to an individual, conditioned to be void if the obligor (on the obligee's agreeing not to prosecute him) should remove certain public nuisances and not-erect any others of the same kind, is good in law. [1 Esp. 643.] [Questioned, Keir v. Leeman, 184?, 9 Q. B. 393 ; Windhill Local Board v. Vint, 1890, 45 Ch. D. 356.] The defendant, in March, 1796, executed a bond to the plaintiff in the penalty of 5001. with a condition, after reciting that the defendant had erected and for two or three years kept and continued three walls or cribs across the river Wye, [476] which were a nuisance to the navigation, that the magistrates assembled at the Quarter Sessions at Hereford had directed the plaintiff (a) to prosecute all persons erecting, keeping, or maintaining such walls, cribs and other nuisances in and upon the river, in order to preserve the navigation, and that in pursuance of such orders he (the plaintiff) had prepared bills of indictment against the defendant, who, in order to avoid the expence of the indictment, had applied to the plaintiff not to prefer the same, upon condition that he (the defendant) should remove the said nuisances and enter into this bond, to which the plaintiff had consented, that if the defendant did, on or before the 1st of September then next, entirely remove, take, and carry away, as well the said walls or cribs, as all others that he had created or kept and maintained in and upon the said river, and the stones, materials, and foundations of all such walls or cribs, so that the same should not remain and obstruct the course or navigation of the river, and should not at any time erect or rebuild any other walls or cribs in the river to the prejudice of the navigation, then the obligations should be void. The plaintiff having declared upon the bond, the defendant craved oyer of the condition, and pleaded the general issue and performance of the condition, on which issue was joined. And at the last Hereford Assizes before Lord Kenyon, the plaintiff obtained a verdict, Abbot, in the last term, moved in arrest of judgment, on the ground that the contract disclosed in the condition of the bond was an illegal contract and could not be enforced in a Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial