Fruhling v Schroeder and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 June 1835 |
| Date | 02 June 1835 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 132 E.R. 31
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 2 Scott, 135; 4 L. J. C. P. 290.
2BnsrG.Of.C.)78. FRUHLING V. SCHROEDER 31 fruhling v. schroeder and others. June 2, 1835. ' [S. C. 2 Scott, 135; 4 L. J. C. P. 290.] Defendant, at J.'s request, consented to transfer to the Plaintiff's account money which Defendant had received for J., and for which it had been the course of dealing between Defendant and J. to allow interest: Held, that Plaintiff in suing for this money could not recover interest on the amount. Assumpsit for money had and received by the Defendants, to the use of the Plaintiff. Jopperts and Co., of Eip Janeiro, sent coffee to the Defendants at Hamburgh, in June 1832, and directed them, with the proceeds to discharge a debt due from Jopperts and Co. to the Plaintiff in London. In August following Jopperts wrote to the Plaintiff, and communicated to him the order they had given to Defendants; and In November following the Defendants wrote to the Plaintiff saying, "Jopperts and Co. have ordered us to remit to you the proceeds of coffee, by the ' Constance' and ' Fortuna,' which, however, has not yet been sold." It appeared to be the course of business between Jopperts and the Defendants, to allow interest on balances remaining in hand and due from the one party to the other.. . The coffee having been sold, and the Defendants declining to remit the proceeds to the Plaintiff, this action was commenced for the amount, and interest. It being contended at the trial, on the part of the Defendants, that their letter of November 1832, was only a ratification of the order they had received from Jop-[78]-perts, and not an assent to become debtors to the Plaintiff, Tindal C. J. left it to the jury to say, what was the effect of the correspondence, and held that the Defendants were liable to be sued by the Plaintiff in an action for money had and received, if they had assented to the transfer proposed by Jopperts and Co. The jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff to the amount of the proceeds of the coffee, with interest from the time of sale. Taddy Serjt. moved to set aside the verdict, or to reduce the damages by the amount of interest allowed. He contended, first,- That the proceeds of the coffee had never been transferred by the Defendants to the account of the Plaintiff; and without an express assent by them to the transfer by Jopperts, no action lay for the Plaintiff against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sempra Metals (formerly Metallgesellschaft Ltd) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue
...has been held that in an action for money had and received the net sum only can be recovered: Moses v Macferlan (1760) 2 Burr 1005; Fruhling v Schroeder (1835) 2 Bing (NC) 78 and Johnson v The King [1904] AC 817, applying London, Chatham and Dover Railway Co v South Eastern Railway Co [18......