Glennie v Imri
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 May 1839 |
| Date | 03 May 1839 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 160 E.R. 773
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER IN EQUITY
S. C. 3 Jur. 432.
glennie v. imri. May 3rd, 1839.-Where an action was brought on a bill of exchange which had been given for goods sold and delivered, and the party to whom the goods were sold alleged that he had been fraudulently deceived in his contract, the goods delivered being inferior both in quality and quantity to what he had ordered : Held, that he could not maintain a bill for an account and for an injunction to restrain the action, inasmuch as his object was to reduce the amount of the bill of exchange by the damages which he claimed for the alleged breach of contract, and that, as this is not the subject of set-off at law, it cannot be the subject of account in Equity.-Courts of equity will not take an account of debts one way and damages the other way. [S. C. 3 Jur. 432.] The bill stated that the plaintiff was, and had been for one year before the filing of the bill, the registered proprietor of the Court Gazette, and also had beeti for several years the registered proprietor of other newspapers and periodical publications. That during the said periods he had had dealings with the defendant, who was a paper manufacturer, for paper, and had from time to time purchased of him various quantities of paper to a large amount, and had from time to time paid to the defendant various sums of money, and had accepted and duly honoured various bills of exchange for paper supplied as aforesaid, and by the means aforesaid a running account arose between the parties, and was subsisting at the time of filing the bill. That the plaintiff had made various complaints of the bad quality of the paper, but continued to deal with the defendant in consequence of his promising to provide better paper, and to make good what was bad. That the plaintiff thus continuing to deal with the defendant, od the 4th of May, 1838, gave the defendant a bill of [437] exchange for 1861 at seven months, payable to the defendant's order; and, upon such bill becoming due, and on the plaintiff informing the defendant that the paper was then lying in the warehouse on account of its bad quality, the defendant offered to renew the bill, and he did so for 1931., the renewed bill bearing date the 19th of December, 1838. That when such latter bill was running, one of the defendant's travellers called on the plaintiff, when the plaintiff informed him, as the fact was, that he had 300 or 400 reams of the paper lying useless, and was therefore afraid to give him further orders. That the agent or traveller then assured the plaintiff that Imri was manufacturing paper equal to the best, when the plaintiff produced a Court Gazette and asked whether Imri could furnish paper equal to that. That the traveller said he could, and the plaintiff then gave him an order for eighty reams of that quality at 21. or 21. 2s. per ream. That on the day when the paper so ordered was to be delivered, the defendant's agent called with a bill for 841. at two months, and a bill for 801 at four months, which the plaintiff, though he had not seen the paper, accepted, relying on the quality of the paper supplied being equal to that of the sample. That after accepting and delivering to the agent such bills of exchange, the plaintiff discovered, as the fact was, that the proper quantity of paper had not been delivered, arid that what had been delivered was so inferior as to be utterly unfit for the purpose required. That the plaintiff communicated this to the defendant, and said be would refuse to pay the bills, unless the defendant would change the paper or find better. That the defendant refused to take back the paper or make any allowance, and that when the first bill became due he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wong Fook Heng v Amixco Asia Pte Ltd
...underlying contract. The cases relied on by the appellant include Pollway v Abdullah [1974] 1 WLR 493[1974] 2 All ER 381 Glennie v Imri [] 160 ER 773 and James Lamont & Co Ltd v Hyland Ltd [1950] 1 KB 585 These authorities are said to support the general rule in law that he who has given a ......
-
Brown v. Trynor and Boyd, (1980) 37 N.S.R.(2d) 139 (CA)
...74]. James Lamont & Co. Ltd. v. Hyland Ltd., [1950] 1 K.B. 585, refd to. [paras. 16, 75]. Glennie v. Imri (1839), 3 Y. & C. 436; 160 E.R. 773, refd to. [para. 19]. Brown, Shipley and Co. Ltd. v. Alicia Hosiery Ltd., [1966] 1 Ld.R. 668, refd to. [paras. 21, 78]. Cebora S.N.C. v. S.I.......
- James Lamont and Company, Ltd v Hyland Ltd (No. 2)