Griffith against Young
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 July 1810 |
| Date | 02 July 1810 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 104 E.R. 201
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
[513] griffith against young. Monday, July 2d, 1810. A tenant having agreed with his landlady that if she would accept another for her tenant in his place, (he being restrained from assigning the lease without her consent) he would pay her 401. out of 1001. which he was to receive for the good-will, if her consent were obtained; and having received the 1001. from the new tenant, who was cognisant of this agreement; is liable to the landlady in an action for money had and received for her use; the consideration being executed, and therefore the case being taken out of the Statute of Frauds, as a contract for an interest in land. The defendant occupied a house as tenant to the plaintiff under lease, and being desirous of assigning over the premises to one Pugh, which he could not do without the leave of the plaintiff, he applied to her for that purpose; and it was finally agreed between the parties that in consideration that the plaintiff would accept Pugh as her tenant at a certain rent, he should pay 1001. for the good will, out of which the defendant was to pay the plaintiff 401. for her consent. Pugh, who was cognisant of this agreement, afterwards paid the 1001. to the defendant, who then promised that Mrs. Griffith should have her 401., and that she might send for it, and receive it: but when applied to afterwards on her behalf, the defendant refused to pay it over; and said that there was no written agreement, and that words were but wind. At the trial before Ld. Ellenborough C.J. at Westminster, the plaintiff, having failed upon a special count in assumpsit upon the agreement, resorted to the general count for money had and received; but was nonsuited upon an objection taken, that this was an agreement for an interest in land, and therefore ought to have been in writing by the 4th section of the Statute of Frauds (a). Garrow and Comyn, in moving to set aside the nonsuit on a former day in this term, contended that money paid for good will was not for an interest in land, but collateral to it: but that at any rate if one agree to receive money for the use of [514] another, which the defendant must be taken to have done in this case, (and Pugh who paid the money and was cognizant of the agreement said at the trial that he would not have paid the 1001. to the defendant if the latter had not promised to pay the 401. to Mrs. Griffith;) it matters not on what...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Savage v Canning
...Cutter v. Powell 2 Smith, L. C. 1. Teal v. AutyENR 4 B. Moore, 542; 2 Br. & B. 99. Gray v. HillENR Ryan & Moody, 420. Griffith v. YoungENR 12 East, 513. Mayfield v. WadsleyENR 3 B. & C. 357. Mavor v. PyneENR 3 Bing. 285. Bragg v. Cole 6 B. Moore, 114. Harman v. ReeveENR 18 C. B. 587. Davenp......
-
Henry Green against John Saddington
...to 101.; for the contract has been partially executed; Hunt v. Silk (5 East, 449), Blackburn v. Smith (2 Exch. 783). In Griffith v. Ymtng (12 East, 513) the plaintiff was no party to the contract for the interest iti land; she recovered because a sum of money was paid to the defendant by a ......