Goodee v Goldsmith
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 728
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 5 Dowl. P. C. 288; 2 Gale, 194; 6 L. J. Ex. 70. Followed, Rumbelow v. Whalley, 1851, 16 Q. B. 400.
[202] goodee v. goldsmith. Exch. of Pleas. 1836.-To a declaration in assumpsit for money had and received, the defendant pleaded, as to all except 31. 5s., non assumpsit; as to all except 31. 5s., a set-off; and as to 31. Os., payment of that sum into Court. 'I he plaintiff, by his replication, admitted the set-oft', and replied that he would not further prosecute his suit, except as to the 31. 5s., and took that sum out of Court: -Held, that the defendant was entitled to his costs on the two first issues. [S. C. 5 Dowl. P. C. 288; 2 Gale, 194; 6 L. J. Ex. 70. Followed, Rumbelow v. WhaHey, 1851, 16 Q. B. 400. j Assumpsit for money had and received, and for money due on an account stated. Pleas-first, non assumpsit, except as to 31. 5s. parcel, &c.; secondly, a set-off, except 2 M. &W. Z03. LEWIS t'. JONES 729 aa to 31. 5s., parcel, &c.; thirdly, payment of 31. 5s. into court. Replication,-protesting that the defendant did promise in manner and form as the plaintiff hath above thereof complained against him, nevertheless, for replication in this behalf as to the said second plea, the plaintiff admits that before and at the time of the commencement of the suit, he was and still is indebted to the defendant in a sum of money, equal to the damages sustained by him, the said plaintiff, by reason of the non-performance by the defendant of the promises in the declaration mentioned, except as to the said sum of 31. 5s., parcel, &c, ; atid he the plaintiff is ready and willing to set oft' and allow to the defendant the full amount of the said damages, and will not further prosecute the suit against the defendant, except as to the said sum of 31. 5s., parcel, &c. To the third plea, the plaintiff replied by accepting the money paid into court. The plaintiff, by his particulars, claimed 281. 5s. for money received by the defendant for the plaintiff's use. The defendant claimed a set off for upwards of 251. for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Birks v Trippet
...would have been regular, if the plea of payment into Court had applied to part of the declaration only. 5 Dowl. 676, Topham v. Kidmore. 2 Mees. & W. 202, Goodee v. Goldsmith. 3 Mees. & W. 497, Emniott v. Standen. It may, perhaps, admit of doubt, whether the course pursued by the plaintiff i......
-
Harrison v Watt and Wife
...the defendant paid the money into court, would have been entitled to recover it. The policy of the new rule was to make each party (a) 2 M. & W. 202. See Williams v. SlMrwaod, 3 Scott, 761 ; 3 Bing. N. C. 331. 1212 POTT V. CLEGG 16 M. & VT. 321. pay costs in respect of all parts of the case......
-
Rumbelow v Whalley
...of the question. The case of Harrison v. Watt (16 M. & W. 316), is identical with the present case in all points. Goodee v. Goldsmith (2 M. & W. 202), is to the same effect ; and the recent case of M'Lean\, Phillips (7 Com. B. 817), proceeds upon the very distinction above pointed out, alth......
-
Amor v Cuthbert
...of 581. 15s. The question therefore is, whether the plaintiff proved any contract beyond that sum. [Tindal C. J. G-oodee v. Goldsmith (2 M. & W. 202, 5 Dowl. P. C. 288), closely resembles this case.] There, to a declaration in assumpsit for money had and received, the defendant pleaded as t......