Hill v Perrott
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 November 1810 |
| Date | 09 November 1810 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 128 E.R. 109
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND OTHER COURTS
Applied, Abbotts v. Barry, 1820, 5Moore, 102. Referred to, Nicol v. Hennessey, 1896, 44 W. R. 584.
[274] hill v. perrott. Nov. 9, 1810. [Applied, Abbotts v. Barry, 1820, 5 Moore, 102. Referred to, Nicol v. Hennessey, 1896, 44 W. R. 584.] Indebitatus asaumpait lies for goods, which the Defendant had by fraud procured the Plaintiff to sell to an insolvent, and which the Defendant had gotten into his own possession ; for he could not set up the sale, because his own fraud had procured it, and tbe mere possession, unaccounted for, raise an assumpsit to pay. Best Serjt. moved to set aside the verdict which had been found in this cause for the Plaintiff, at the sittings after the last Trinity term before Mansfield C. J. in London, a.nd to enter a nonsuit. The action was for goods sold : there were special counts upon a contract of the Defendant to pay for goods to be delivered at his request to Jean Meers Daeosta; but the evidence being of a contract to pay for goods to be delivered to Isaac Mendez Dacosta, those counts failed the Plaintiff. The evidence was, that goods to a considerable amount were looked out to be delivered to Dacosta, for which the Defendant undertook to accept a bill at six months to be indorsed by Dacosta. The goods were delivered to Dacosta, and afterwards were found in the Defendant's possession : the whole was a swindling transaction, in which Dacosta was a mere instrument. Dacosta was insolvent, and the Defendant having become a guarantee for him, assisted him to buy these goods, which were, the moment after, made over to himself for his own indemnity. The only count that would serve tbe Plaintiff, waa indebitatus asaumpsit for goods sold, upon which he obtained a verdict. [275] Bast Serjf. on this day moved to set aside the verdict and enter a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loughnan v Barry and Byrne
...Reese Silver Mining Company v. SmithENR 1 H. & N. 503. Irving v. MotleyENR 7 Bing. 543. Noble v. AdamsENR 7 Taunt. 59. Hill v. PerrottENR 3 Taunt. 274. Abbotts v. Barry 5 B. Moo. 98. Perkins v. Smith 1 Wils. 328. Gompertz v. BartlettENR 2 E. & B. 849. Polehill v. WalterENR 3 B. & Ad. 114. M......
-
Howard v Wood
...ex contractu has been discussed : Hambly v. Trott, Cowp. 371. Linden v. Hooper, ibid. 414. Thorp v. How, Bull. N. P. 130. Hill v. Perrott, 3 Taunt. 274. Thomas v. JHiip, Buller N. P. 130. Semb. S. G Lofft, 208. Kitchen v. Campbell, 3 Wilson, 304. Anon. Lofft, 320, Longchamp v. Kenny, Dougl.......
-
Haslock against Fergusson
...the credit of another, " to the intent or purpose that such other person may obtain credit, money, or goods" (a). In Hill v, Perrott (3 Taunt. 274), the defendant, by a fraudulent guarantee, induced the plaintiff to sell goods to au insolvent, who made them over to the de-[93]-fendaut. The ......
-
Rumsey v The North-Eastern Railway Company
...goods to an insolvent, and afterwards got them into his own possession, he was held liable in an action for goods sold : Hill v. Parrot, 3 Taunt. 274. So, where a father fraudulently represented that he was about to relinquish his business in favour of his son, to whom (being a minor) goods......