George Booth, - Appellant; George, Earl of Warrington, - Respondent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 April 1714 |
| Date | 29 April 1714 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 2 E.R. 111
House of Lords
Mew's Dig. vii. 704; ix. 124. Explained Gibbs v. Guild, 1881, 8 Q.B.D. 304. See Betjemann v. Betjemann, 1895, 64 L. J. Ch. 641.
case 6.-george booth,-Appellant; george, earl of warrington,- Respondent [29th April 1714]. [Mew's Dig. vii. 704; ix. 124. Explained Gitbs v. Guild, 1881, 8 Q.B.D. 304. See Betjemann v. Betjemann, 1895, 64 L. J. Ch. 641.] A. under a pretence that B. was instrumental in procuring a beneficial marriage for C. obtains a bond from C. to B. for 1000 guineas, as a reward for his services. The bond is paid when due; but in nine years afterwards C. discovers the whole to be a gross imposition in A. and that he received all the money. On a bill brought, A. was decreed to repay C. the whole money, with interest and costs.] ** dbceebs oi the Court of Chancery affirmed. Where there is fraud, and such fraud is concealed, no length of time can bar. See Cottrel v. Purchase; Forrest. 61; and post, ca, 14. S.P.-and also ante, case 1 of this title, relative to marriage-brocage agreements.** Viner, vol. 13. p. 542, ca. 3. In August 1701, Mr. John Oldbury, a merchant in London, died, leaving only two daughters; namely, Mary, who afterwards married the respondent, and Dorothy, who married Francis Herbert Esq. It being reported that Mr. Oldbury had died worth 100,000, the respondent, on the 6th of September 1701, wrote a letter from Dunham in Cheshire, to his uncle the appellant, who was then in London, desiring him to make some inquiry into the truth of this report; this the appellant accordingly did, and in answer informed the respondent, " that the [164] ladies fortunes were SO' very considerable, that nothing must be wanting to obtain them, that was honourable and just; that to obtain either of them in marriage, would be a matter attended with very great difficulties, but he would endeavour to get over them, and should be glad to be instrumental in serving his nephew in a matter of that great concern, to make the head of his family considerable; and that he would forthwith undertake and go about it." The respondent, apprehending that the fortunes of these ladies were at least 40,000 each, and his estate being incumbered with the debts of his father to more than that amount; wrote another letter to the appellant, on the 10th of September 1701, saying, that if the ladies fortunes were so considerable as was represented, he should think no trouble or expence ill employed to obtain, one of them. To this letter, the appellant, on the 7th of October following, returned an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheldon v R H. M. Outhwaite (Underwriting Agencies) Ltd
...of the statutory limitation period where the plaintiffs' cause of action was founded on or concealed by the fraud of the defendant. Booth v Earl of Warrington (1714) 4 Bro. P.C. 163 is a case in which this rule was applied and it was held that the statute should not avail the dishonest defe......
-
R Hysaj v R Bakijasi and Others
...cases where the cause of action had been fraudulently concealed or, later also, was itself based on fraud: Booth v Earl of Warrington (1714) 4 Bro PC 163, Gibbs v Guild (1882) 9 QBD 59, Bulli Coal Mining Co v Osborne [1899] AC 351 and Lynn v Bamber [1930] 2 KB 72. … 56. Here, Mr Beesley's c......
-
Banner Homes Ltd v St Albans City and District Council
...could not be relied upon in cases where the cause of action had been fraudulently concealed or, later also, was itself based on fraud: Booth v Warrington (1714) 2 ER 111Gibbs v Gould (1881–82) LR 9 QBD 59, Bulli Coal Mining Co v Osborne [1899] AC 351 and Lynn v Bamber [1930] 2 KB 72. 55. If......
-
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another v Welwyn Hatfield Council
...could not be relied upon in cases where the cause of action had been fraudulently concealed or, later also, was itself based on fraud: Booth v Warrington (1714) 2 ER 111, Gibbs v Gould (1881-82) LR 9 QBD 59, Bulli Coal Mining Co v Osborne [1899] AC 351 and Lynn v Bamber [1930] 2 KB 55 If ......