Hunlocke v Blacklowe
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 85 E.R. 893
COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Referred to, Davies v. Davies, 1887, 36 Ch. D. 367; Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company v. Nordenfelt [1893], 1 Ch. 652; [1894], A. C. 535.
[186] 27. hunlocke versus blacklowe. Easter, 22 Car. II. Kegis, Eot. 2880. "Referred to, Davies v. Dames, 1887, 36 Ch. D. 367; Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company v. Nordenfelt [1893], 1 Ch. 652; [1894], A. C. 535.] S. C. 1 Mod. 64. 1 Sid. 464. 2 Keb, 674. If a covenant on one part be negative, and an affirmative covenant on the other part be in consideration of the performance thereof, though the negative covenant be broken, yet the affirmative covenant ought to be performed. Debt on bond, dated the last day of July in the 16th year of the reign of the now King, conditioned to perform covenants in articles of agreement. The defendant, after oyer of the condition, sets out the articles, by which it appears that the plaintiff, being a taylor, had assigned his trade to the defendant, and all the benefit of the customers named in a schedule annexed to the articles, and the plaintiff covenants with the defendant, that he would from thenceforth leave off and desist from using and exercising the trade of a taylor with any of the customers named in the schedule, with several other covenants on the part of the said plaintiff to be performed, and the said defendant, in consideration of the performance thereof, covenants that he will pay the plaintiff 1001. a year during his life by quarterly payments,(l) with divers other (1) This bond seems to be founded on a good consideration; for though a bond, covenant, or promise, even on good consideration, not to use a trade any where in England, is void, as being too general a restraint of trade ; yet if such bond, covenant, or promise, be not to use a trade at a particular place, it is good. All. 67, Prugnell v. Gosse. For the game reason it seems, that a bond, covenant, or promise, not to use a trade with particular customers by name, if founded on a good consideration, is also valid. All the eases on this subject prior to Mitchell v. Reynolds, 1 P. Will. 181, are noticed in that case. There in debt on bond, the defendant prayed oyer of the condition, which recited, that whereas the defendant had assigned to the plaintiff a lease of a messuage and bake-house in L. in the parish of St. A. for the term of 5 years; if the defendant should not exercise the trade of a baker within that parish during the said term, or in case he did, should, within 3 days after proof thereof made, pay to the plaintiff 501., then the obligation to be void, and pleaded that he was a baker by trade, that he had served an apprenticeship to it, by reason whereof the bond was void in law, wherefore he traded, as he well might; and on demurrer, the Court was of opinion, that a special consideration being set forth in the condition, which shews it was reasonable for the parties to enter into it, the bond was good; and that the true distinction was not between promises and bonds, but between contracts with and without consideration; and that wherever a sufficient consideration appeared to make it a proper and a useful contract, and such as could not be set aside without injury to a fair contractor, it ought to be maintained ; but with this constant diversity, viz. where the restraint is general not to exercise a trade throughout the kingdom, and where it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial