Gould v Johnson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 24
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER.
Pas. 1 Ann. B. R. 2 Ld. Raym. 838, S. C. with another point. 3 Ld. Raym. Entries 7.
10. gould versus johnson. [Pas. 1 Ann. B. E. 2 Ld. Eaym. 838, S. C. with another point. 3 Ld. Eaym. Entries 7.] Post, 422, S. C. Far. 143, called Booth and Johnson. Assumpsit, in consideration that the plaintiff would receive A. &c. into his house ut hospites, and find them meat, &c. Averred, that he did receive them, and find them meat, &o. held sufficient averment, 1BALKELD, 26. ACTION SUR LE CASE, SUR ASSUMPSIT 25 without ut haspUes; on demurrer. 1 Sid. 309. 3 Lev. 55. 6 Mod. 227, 259. Poph. 193. Yelv. 87. 1 Saund. 7. 6 Mod. 77. Post, 29, pi. 30. Assumpsit; and declares on a promise, in consideration he would receive A. B. and C. into his house ut hospites, and find them meat, drink, and all necessaries, to pay what was deserved; and says, that he did receive them into his house, and did find them meat, drink, and all necessaries; and the defendant has not paid, &c. Defendant demurred, because it was not said he received them ut hospites, which is a special receiving, as inn-keepers do ; and that a precise performance was necessary. Et per Holt & Cur. This is a sufficient performance; for the receiving here mentioned, is receiving them ut hospites, and evidence of such reception would well prove them to be received ut hospites. And if they were received as servants, and not as guests, it should have been pleaded on the other side with a traverse of their being received ut hospites: a finding meat, drink, &c. is a guesting them, and must be so intended, till the contrary be shewed. These cases were cited on the other side, and answered. 2 Cro. 45. Jones 441. 2 Co. 245. Yelv. 175 (a). (a) Fide Str. 88. 2 Mod. 24. Ray. 204.
English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 367
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER.
Hill. 1 Ann. B. R. 2 Ld. Raym. 838, S. C. Pleadings and Record, 3 Ld. Raym. p. 7.
9. gould versus johnson. [Hill. 1 Ann. B. E. 2 Ld. Eaym. 838, S. C. Pleadings and Eecord, 3 Ld. Eaym. p. 7. Where the duty arises on consideration executory, the defendant must plead quod actio non accrevit, &c. Vide ante, pi. 4. 2 Show. 79, 126. 1 Mod. 71, 268. 2 Saund. 66, 125. 1 Saund. 36, 37. 1 Vent. 89. 2 Keb. 674. 1 Lev. 298, S. C. 368 LIMITATIONS 2 8A1KELD, 423. Ante, 25. Far. 143. Holt 34. See 1 Mod. 71, 89, 268, 269. 2...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moree et Al v The Imperial Life Assurance Company of Canada
... ... 18 In Gould v. Johnson (1702) 2 Salk. 422 and East India Co v. Oditchurn Paul (1850) 7 Moo. P.C.C. 88 , it was held that in an action for breach of contract, ... ...
-
Alleyne v Trinidad and Tobago Housing Development Corporation
... ... Many of the cases cited in support of this principle reflect its longevity, namely, the case of Gould v. Johnson (1702) 2 Salk. 422 ... 62 This principle continues to be followed today, as for example in the case of ... ...
-
Booth against Johnson
... ... booth against johnson. Reported in Ld. Raym. 838, by the name of Gould against Johnson. Writ of error. England, (to wit).-The Lord William the Third, late King of England, &c. sent to his right trusty and well-beloved Thomas Trevor, Knight, his Chief Justice of the Bench, his writ close in these words, (to wit) William the Third by the grace of God, of England, ... ...
- Gould v Johnson