Hardy v Martin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 May 1783 |
| Date | 07 May 1783 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 29 E.R. 1046
IN COURT, LORDS COMMISSIONERS.
S. C. 1 Bro. C. C. 419 (n.). See Wallis v. Smith, 1882, 21 Ch. D. 259, and S. C. on appeal, 47 L. T. 396.
hardy versus maetin. In Court, Lords Commissioners. May, 7, 1783. [S. 0.1 Bro. G. G. 419 (n.). See Wallis v. Smith, 1882, 21 Gh. D. 259, and S. G. on appeal, 47 L. T. 396.] On shewing cause against dissolving an injunction.-If a man agree not to do an act, and enter into a bond with a penalty to be forfeited on his doing it, the penalty is never to be considered as the price for doing such act, but the court will relieve by injunction, until the actual damage sustained shall be ascertained by an issue. The plaintiff and defendant had been co-partners in the business of brandy-merchants. On the plaintiff's quitting the business, he sold the lease and the good-will of the shop to the defendant for 300, and entered into a bond to the defendant in the penalty of 600, the condition of which was, that if the plaintiff should not during the term of 19 years sell any quantity of brandy less than 6 gallons within the cities of London or Westminster, or within 5 miles thereof, or permit any person or persons so to do in his name, or let any house which he might thereafter have within those limits to any other person carrying on such trade, &c., then the bond to be void. The plaintiff's nephew afterwards carried on that trade within the limits aforesaid, and the plaintiff himself had served a customer with some small quantity of brandy. The defendant brought an action on the bond, and had a verdict for the penalty. The present bill prayed that an account might be taken of the damage actually sustained by the defendant, and that an issue at law might be directed for that purpose, and that on payment of such damage, the defendant might be restrained by injunction. And the question was, whether, under these circumstances, the court would relieve against the penalty. The cases mentioned were Cro. Ja. 596: 1 Sid. 442. Mitchell v. Reynolds, 1 P. W. 181. Tall v. Ryland, 1 Cha. Ca. 183. Roy v. Duke of Bedford. 2 Atk. 190. Rolfe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
William Hyde, since Deceased, v Mary Price, John Price, William Price, William Mann Godshall, Thomas Shearcroft, Edward Walwyn Shepherd, and William John Playters, all since Deceased, and The Governor and Company of the Bank of England; and George Hart v Chase Cradock, William Temple, George Maule, and William Brown and Mary, his wife
...and to send it to a trial to ascertain the damages in a quantum damnificatus. Consult Benson v. Gibson, 3 Atkyns, 395; Hardy v. Martin, 1 Cox, 26 ; Slmnanv. Walter, 1 Brown C. C. 418 ; Errington v. Aynesley, '2 Brown C. C. 341. Sometimes the Court directed the issue of quantum damnificatus ......
- Hamilton v Lethbridge
-
Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd
...and (5) relief was granted, in the case of penal bonds, where there was no express contractual promise to perform the condition (see Hardy v Martin[ 93]), though it seems such a promise could in many cases readily be implied.’ 66 However, as noted earlier in these reasons under the heading ......
- Amev-Udc Finance Ltd v Austin