Field and Another against Joseph Robins
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 April 1838 |
| Date | 19 April 1838 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 770
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 3 N. P. 226; 1 W. W. & H. 145; 7 L. J. Q. B. 153; 2 Jur. 855.
field and another against joseph robins. Thursday, April 19th, 1838. Pl&intiffa, on becoming sureties for defendant, took a joint and several indemnity bond from defendant and J. Plaintiffs afterwards became liable, as such sureties, to pay, and paid, 10981. They then sued J. on the indemnity bond, and obtained a verdict for 10981., but accepted 2151. from him in compromise, giving him a receipt as follows:-"Received of J. 2151., being the sum we have agreed to accept in discharge of the damages and costs in this action." Plaintiffs afterwards sued defendant on the same bond, and ho pleaded payment by J. of 2151. in full satisfaction. Held, that proof of the compromise with J., as above stated, did not support the plea. [S. C. 3 N. & P. 226; 1 W. W. & H. 145; 7 L. J. Q. B. 153; 2 Jur. 855.] Debt on bond. The condition of the bond, set forth in the declaration, recited a previous bond, whereby the plaintiffs and defendant became jointly and severally bound to His then Majesty in a penalty of 20001. for the faithful discharge by defendant of the office, to which he had been appointed, of a storekeeper of the Ordnance; and it was declared by the condition of the present bond that, if the defendant and one James Robins, or either of them, their or either of their heirs, executors, &c., should indemnify the plaintiffs and each of them, &c., from and against all actions, suits, costs, charges, &c., by reason of the recited obligation, then [91] the obligation now declared upon was to be void, otherwise, &c. The declaration then stated that the defendant entered upon and did not faithfully discharge the office, by reason whereof the recited bond became forfeited, and the plaintiffs were sued thereupon in two several actions in the Court of Exchequer, and, to compromise the same, were forced and obliged to pay one James Smith, on behalf of His Majesty, 10981. Breach, that defendant and James Robins, although requested, did not nor would indemnify plaintiffs, &c. Plea. That the said James Robins, after the making of the writing obligatory declared upon in this action, and after the forfeiture of the same by the breach of the condition thereof in the declaration mentioned, and whilst the damages sustained by the plaintiffs by reason of the said breach remained and were wholly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas Small v William Bruce Drummond
...3 East, 251. Crawley v. LidgeatENR Cro. Jac. 338, 342. Watters v. SmithENR 2 B. & Ad. 889. Field v. Robins 3 Nev. & P. 226; S. C. 8 A. & E. 90. Fitch v. SuttonENR 5 East, 229. Cumber v. WaneENR 1 Str. 426; S. C. 1 Smith's L. C. 147. Thomas v. HeathornENR 2 B. & C. 477, 480. Gilbert v. Parke......
-
Sibree v Tripp
...of the original cause of action, but only the suspension of the remedy : 11'alters v. Smith (2 B. & Adol. S89), Field v. liobin-s (8 Ad. & E. 90). Lastly, this plea is substantially bad, and the plaintiff is therefore entitled to judgment non obstante veredicto. The plea confesses a debt, a......
-
Thompson and Others v
...v. EyreENRUNK 6 Taunt. 289; S. C. 1 Marsh, 603. Grundy v. Meighan 7 Ir. Law Rep. 519. Watters v. Smith 2 B. & Adol. 889. Field v. Robins 8 A. & E. 90. Ashbee v. PidduckENR 1 Mees. & Wels. 564. Solly v. ForbesENR 2 Brod. & Bing. 38. CASES AT LAW. 547 M. T. 1848. Queen'sBench. THOMPSON and ot......