Hardy against Bern
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1794 |
| Date | 01 January 1794 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 355
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
3 B. & P. 607. 6 East, 613.
hardy against bern. 1794. [3 B. & P. 607. 6 East, 613.] A note of this case was given in the report of the case of Roles v. Rosewell, ante, 540. But having since been honoured with an authentic copy of the reasons on which Lord Kenyon and Mr. Justice Buller founded their opinion in the Exchequer Chamber, reported to my Lord Chancellor, we take the first opportunity of re-publishing the case in the form in which it has been communicated to us. " This case, which is brought by writ of error from the Court of Exchequer, is an action of debt upon articles of agreement containing divers stipulations of things to be done by the defendant; and there is a penal clause, whereby the parties became mutually bound to each other in the penal sum of 1001. for the performance of the articles. The action is brought for that penalty, and the plaintiff, in his declaration, alleged the breach of several of the stipulations entered into by the defendant. These breaches were severally denied by the defendant, and issues were joined thereon. All the issues were found for the plaintiff, and a verdict given for 356 HUTTO& V. LEWIS ST.R.637. him for Is. damages for the detention of the debt; and judgment entered thereon. The defendant brought this writ of error, and assigned as error, inter alia, [and which is the material error,] that, although' the plaintiff hath assigned several breaches of covenant, and upon the trial the issues found the^yeral breaches so assigned^ yet the jury did not, according to [637] the form of the statute, assess any damages for the said several breaches, or any of them. "The question is stated in this assignment of error, and depends on the statute 8 & 9 W. 3, c. 11, s. 8, to which we beg leave to refer -your Lordship. It is apparent to us that the law was made in favour of defendants, and is highly remedial, calculated to give plaintiffs relief up to the extent of the damage sustained,, and to protect defendants against the payment of further sums than what was in conscience due, and also to take away the necessity of proceedings in equity to obtain relief against an unconscientious demand of the whole penalty in cases where small damages only had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis
...damages to be pleaded and proved and staying all further proceedings on the bond: see Roles v Rosewell (1794) 5 TR 538, Hardy v Bern (1794) 5 TR 636. The effect of this legislation was thus to make it unnecessary to proceed separately in chancery for relief from the penalty and in the court......