Fidgett v Penny
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1834 |
| Date | 01 January 1834 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 149 E.R. 1014
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 4 Tyr. 650; 2 Dowl. P. C. 714; 3 L. J. Ex. 355.
fidgett v. penny. Exch. of Pleas. 1834.-On 5th February, an account was stated between the parties, and the balance was in favour of the plaintiff. On the 10th March another account was stated, and the balance was in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff afterwards sued upon the first account stated, and the defendant (after the new rules) pleaded non assumpsit:-Held, that, under this plea, he could not avail himself of the defence of the second account stated. [S. C. 4 Tyr. 650; 2 Dowl. P. C. 714; 3 L. J. Ex. 355.] Assumpsit for money had and received, and on an account stated. Plea -Non assumpsit. The action, which was brought since the rules of H. T. 4 Will. 4, [109] came into operation, was tried before the Secondary, in pursuance of a Judge's order, under 3 & 4 Will.-4, c. 17, when the plaintiff' gave in evidence an account stated between himself and the defendant on the 5th February, upon the face of which a balance was due to him, and for this balance he claimed a verdict. In answer to this case, the defendant offered to prove, that, on the 10th March, the parties again met, 1C. M. & R. no. MESTAYER V. BKiGS 1015 when another account was stated between them, which included the sums for which the plaintiff had credit in the account of the 5th February, and also a sum of 111. 11s. due from the plaintiff to the defendant, by which the balance was turned in the defendant's favour. The particulars of the plaintiff's demand coincided with the amount due on the account stated of the 5th February. After argument, the Secondary decided that the defendant was not entitled, under the plea of non assutnpsit, to give the account of the 10th March in evidence; and the plaintiff had a verdict for 01. Is., the balance clue upon the first account, with liberty to the defendant to move to set aside the verdict for the plaintiff, and enter a verdict for the defendant, a rule having been obtained accordingly, or, in the alternative, for a new trial - Heaton was now heard iti support of the rule. He contended that the evidence of the second account stated ought to have been received, as shewing, that, at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gobind Lalwani v Basco Enterprises Pte Ltd
...& Sons Motor Co Ltd [1968] 1 MLJ 167 (distd) Cocking v Ward (1845) 1 CB 858; 135 ER 781 (refd) Fidgett v Penny (1834) 1 Cr M & R 108; 149 ER 1014 (refd) George, In re;Francis v Bruce (1890) 44 Ch D 627 (folld) Ice-Mack Pte Ltd, Re [1989] 2 SLR (R) 283; [1989] SLR 876 (distd) Irving v Veitch......