Harman v Reeve
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 May 1856 |
| Date | 31 May 1856 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 139 E.R. 1500
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 25 L. J. C. P. 257; W. R. 599. Referred to, Savage v. Canning, 1867, Ir. R. 1 C. L. 448.
[587] harman 'v. reeve. May 31, 1856. [S. C. 25 L. J. C. P. 257; 4 W. K. 599. Referred to, Savage v. Canning, 1867, Ir. E. 1 C. L. 448.] The 17th section of the Statute of Frauds, 29 C. 2, c. 3, and the 7th section of Lord Tenterden's Act, 9 G. 4, c. 14, are to be read together.-A contract for the sale of f oods of the value of 101. or upwards, is not the less within the 17th section of the tatute of Frauds because it also embraces something to which the statute does not extend.-Therefore, where it was agreed, by parol, between A. and B., that A. should sell B. a mare and foal, and should at his own expense keep them until a certain day, and that A. should also for a given time keep and feed a mare and foal belonging to B., and that, in consideration of all this, B. should fetch away A.'s mare and foal on the day named, and pay him 301.:-Held, that this, so far as it related to the sale of A.'s mare and foal, was a contract within the 17th section of the Statute of Frauds, and void for want of writing,-no point having been made at the trial as to the value, The declaration stated, that, on the 28th of Jnne, 1855, in consideration that the plaintiff bargained with the defendant to sell, and thep sold to him, a certain mare and foal, and that the plaintiff would, at his own expense, keep and feed the said mare and foal for a certain time, to wit, until Michaelmas then next ensuing, and that the plaintiff would, at his own expense, maintain, feed, and keep a certain other mare and foal belonging to the defendant, for and during the period of six weeks, the defendant agreed to purchase from the plaintiff the mare and foal first mentioned, and to fetch the same away from the plaintiff's at Michaelmas aforesaid, and pay to the plaintiff the sum of 301. The declaration then contained a general averment of performance by the plaintiff, and that all things had happened to entitle the plaintiff to have the contract performed on the defendant's part; and assigned for breach, that the defendant did not nor would fetch away the mare and foal so agreed to be purchased and fetched away, or either of them, or pay the plaintiff the said sum of 301., -concluding with an averment of special damage. The cause was tried before Jervis, C. J., at the last Spring Assizes for Norfolk. The plaintiff having proved the agreement as alleged in the declaration, and its performance on his part, and breach on the part of the defendant, it was objected, on the part of the latter, that [588] there was no note of the contract in writing, as required by the 17th section of the statute of frauds. For the plaintiff it was insisted, that the case was not within the statute at all, inasmuch as the contract was not for the sale of goods only, but for that and something more; and that, at all events, the case was taken out of the statute by reason of the part performance, viz the reception of the grass eaten by the defendant's mare and foal. His Lordship ruled that the contract was within the 17th section, and accordingly nonsuited the plaintiff', reserving him leave to move to enter a verdict for 301, if the court should think his ruling wrong. O'Malley, in Easter Term, obtained a rule nisi for that purpose. Byles, Serjt., now shewed cause. The nonsuit was right. This was a contract for the sale by the plaintiff to the defendant of a mare and foal, which the plaintiff was to keep for the defendant until the ensuing Michaelmas,-the contract having been made on the 28th of June. It was part of the contract that the plaintiff should also keep for the defendant another mare and foal (the property of the defendant) for six weeks. And for the whole of this the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff 301. So far as regards the sale of the mare and foal, that clearly is within the statute of frauds. [Crowder, J. There was no specific sum fixed as the price of the mare and foal 1] No. The 301. was the consideration for the whole. [Jervis, C. J. No point was made (a) See Chitty and Temple on the Law of Carriers, pp. 55, 139. 18C.B.589. HARMAN V. REEVE 1501 at the trial as to the value.] The 17th section of the 29 Car. 2, c. 3, enacts that "no contract for the sale of any goods, wares, and merchandises for the price of 101. sterling or upwards, shall be allowed to be good, except the buyer shall accept part of the goods so [589] sold, and actually receive the same, or give something in earnest to bind the bargain, or in part of payment, or that some note or memorandum in writing of the said bargain be made and signed by the parties to be charged by such contract, or their.agents thereunto lawfully...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Savage v Canning
...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. Davenport v. DaviesENR 1 M. & W. 570. Law v. ThompsonUNK 15 M. 7amp; W. 541. Wilkin v. ReedeENR 15 C. B. 206. Lucas v. TarletonENR 3 H. & N. 117.......
-
Sarl and Another v Bourdillon
...ever saw the head of the old roll in the Exchequer.] There is a material [191] difference between a record and a * See Harman v. Reeve, 18 C. B. 587. l C. B. (N. S.)192. SARL V. BOTJRDILLON 81 memorandum of a contract under this statute. [Jervis, C. J. Take the ordinary case of an invoice w......
-
The Great Northern Great Western Railway Company v Rimell
...is a gross abuse of the rule, as to circumstantial evidence. There was no evidence whatever of felony by any servant 1500 HAEMAN V."REEVE 18 C. B. 587. of the company. I am glad the Lord Chief Justice has explained the case of Butt v. The Great Western Railway Company ; for in the modern te......
-
Crone v Dublin County Council
...which a plaintiff may sue on quantum meruit. This rule is illustrated in the well-known case of CUTTER v.POWELL 6 T.R.320. also reported at 18 C.B.587. The head note of this case in the Term Reports is as follows:- "If a sailor hired for a voyage take a promissory note from his employer for......