Griffinhoofe v Daubuz
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 November 1855 |
| Date | 29 November 1855 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 119 E.R. 659
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 25 L. J. Q. B. 237; 2 Jur N. S. 392; 4 W. R. 131. Applied, Attorney-General v. Durham, 1882, 46 L. T. 19. Explained, Edmunds v. Wallingford, 1885, 14 Q. B. D. 815.
[746] casks argued and determined in michaelmas vacation, XIX. victoria. The Court of Queen's Bench did not sit in Bane in this Vacation. in the exchequer chamber. (error from the queen's bench.) griffinhoobe against daubuz. Thursday, November 29th, 1855. Declaration alleged that plaintiff was tenant of a farm to defendant for a term of years, after the expiration of which there became due and payable, from defendant to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, money in respect of a tithe commutation rent charged on the farm and land, which said farm and land was liable to the payment of the rent, as defendant knew: that, defendant having neglected to'pay it, the CanunisBioners, according to the provisions of the statute (6 & 7 W. 4, c. 71), distrained for it a stack of wheat of plaintiff, then lawfully being on the farm and land, and afterwards sold it, in satisfaction of the sum in arrear, costs and charges ; and plaintiff was deprived of the stack; yet defendant, though he had notice of these several matters and was requested by plaintiff to indemnify him, had not indemnified him.-Held, by the Exchequer Chamber, that the declaration shewed no caus$ of action, the facts stated creating no liability on the part of defendant to indemnify plaintiff. [S. C. 25 L. J. Q. B. 237 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 392 ; 4 W. H. 131. Applied, Attm-ney-General v. Durham, 1882, 46 L. T. 19. Explained, Edmunds v. Wallingfmd, 1885, 14 Q. B. D, 815.] The first count of the declaration alleged that defendant, by deed dated 27th October 1845, demised a farm in Sussex to plaintiff, from 29th September 1845, for the term of twenty one years, determinable as therein mentioned. That plaintiff entered and was [747] possessed till the demise was determined on Michaelmas day 1852, according to the provisions of the deed. The count then stated a breach of a covenant as to taking straw at a valuation. Second count. That, after the determination of the terra as in the first count mentioned, to wit 1st October 1852, "a certain sum of money, to wit 411. 12s. lOJd., became and accrued due and payable from the defendant to certain persons : that is to say, to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England and Wales, for and in respect of a certain sum or rent in lieu and stead of tithes, or a tithe rent charged upon the said farm and land in the said first count mentioned : which said sum or rent the defendant, as owner of the said farm, and entitled to the rents and profits thereof, was liable to pay, and ought to have paid ; and which said farm and laud was liable to the payment of the said sum or rent, as he the defendant well knew. And, the defendant having neglected and refused to pay the said sum, and the same being in arrear and unpaid as aforesaid, that is to say on" 1st June 1853, " the said Ecclesiastical 660 GRIFFINHOOFE V. DAUBUZ 5 EL. tc BL. 748. Commissioners, by their bailiff duly authorized in that behalf, for obtaining payment of the same, duly, and according to the provisions of the statutes in that behalf, distrained for the said sum so in arrear a certain stack of wheat of the plaintiff, then lawfully being upon the said farm and land ; and afterwards, in pursuance of the provisions of the said statutes, sold and disposed of the said stack of wheat for and in satisfaction of the said sum so in arrear and the costs and charges of the said distress. By reason of which premises the plaintiff lost and was deprived of the said stack of wheat. And, although the defendant had notice of the several matters [748] in this count mentioned, and was requested by the plaintiff to indemnify the plaintiff against the said seizure and sale, and to make good to him the loss so occasioned, yet the defendant has not indemnified the plaintiff, or made good to him the loss so occasioned, but has neglected and refused so to do." 3d. count, for money paid. 4th count, on accounts stated. Fleas. (1) As to 1st count and part of 3d and 4th counts, payment of money into Court; (2) As to the residue of 3d and 4th counts, Nunquam indebitatus ; (3) As to the same residue, Payment; (4) " As to so much of the 2d count of the declaration as alleges that the defendant was liable to pay, and ought to have paid, the sum or tithe rent in that count mentioned," " that the defendant was not liable to pay, nor ought he to have paid, the said sum or tithe rent, or any part thereof, as alleged ;" (5) To the 2d count, " that the said stack of wheat therein mentioned was not lawfully upon the said farm and land as alleged ;" (6) To the 2d count, " that the said stack of wheat therein mentioned was not, at the time when the same was so distrained as therein alleged, or at any time after the determination of the said term, lawfully on the part of the said farm and land where the same was so distrained." The plaintiff took the money out of Court; and issue was joined on the 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th and 6th pleas. A verdict was found : on the 2d plea, for plaintiff; on the 3d plea, for defendant; on the 4th plea, for defendant; on the 5th plea, for plaintiff; on the 6th plea, for plaintiff. Judgment was entered up in the Court of Queen's Bench : " that the plaintiff take nothing by his said writ, [749] except the said " sum paid into Court and his costs in that behalf; " and that the defendant do go thereof without day, except as aforesaid ; and that the defendant do recover against the plaintiff" his costs of defence, after allowing the plaintiffs said costs. The plaintiff, in the Court of Exchequer Chamber, suggested error; which the defendant denied. The case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S v Van As
...in teenstelling tot gewone of ligte nalatigheid. Peters, Opzet en Schuld in het Strafrecht, bl. 4; Gordon, The Criminal Law of Scotland, bl. 230; R. v. Bateman, 133 L.T. te bl. 734; Van Bemmelen en Van Kattum, Nederlandse Strafrecht, band 2, bl. 235; Williams, Criminal Law, 2de uitg. bl. 10......
-
Theron en Andere v Ring van Wellington van die NG Sendingkerk in Suid-Afrika en Andere
...bekende passasie in Lord GREENE se uitspraak in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation, (1948) 1 K.B. 223 te bl. 230, (1947) 2 All E.R. 680 - wat ook sy spore in ons regspraak nagelaat het, nl. 'It is true to say that if a decision on a competent matter is so un......
-
S v Prinsloo
...nie bereid is om toestemming te D gee nie, moet 'n substantiewe aansoek aan die Hof gerig word. (Vgl. Rex v Lepile, 1953 (1) SA 225 (T) te bl. 230; Meyer v Rex, supra: maar nie op dié punt gerapporteer nie; Rex v Ramathula, 1947 (2) SA 447 Daar is geen aansoek deur appellant aan hierdie Hof......
-
Theron en Andere v Ring van Wellington van die NG Sendingkerk in Suid-Afrika en Andere
...bekende passasie in Lord GREENE se uitspraak in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation, (1948) 1 K.B. 223 te bl. 230, (1947) 2 All E.R. 680 - wat ook sy spore in ons regspraak nagelaat het, 'It is true to say that if a decision on a competent matter is so unreas......