Husband v Davis
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judgment Date | 18 January 1851 |
Date | 18 January 1851 |
Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 138 E.R. 256
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 2 L. M. & P. 50; 20 L. J. C. P. 118.
256 HUSBAND V.DAVIS 10 C. B. 646. husband v. davis. Jan. 18, 1851. [S. C. 2 L. M. & P. 50; 20 L. J. C. P. 118.] A plea of part payment, post diem, to debt on bond, is a good plea, under the 4 Anne, c. 16, s. 12, after verdict.-Payment of a bond debt to one of two trustees, is a good discharge as to both. This was an action of debt on bond. The declaration stated, that, by an indenture of the 16th of December, 1842, the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff and Eobert Hart 10001. on the 21st of May then next, and interest in the mean time at 51. per cent.; that Robert Hart died on, &c.; that the defendant did not pay to the plaintiff and Robert Hart in Robert Hart's lifetime, nor to the plaintiff since Robert Hart's death; and that the principal sum of 10001., and 1251. for interest, were due from the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded, as to 2001., parcel of the 10001., and as to 251., parcel of the 1251., that the said sum of 251. was claimed as interest on 2001., parcel, &c., for two years and a half; and that the defendant, before the commencement of the said period of two years and a half, to wit, on the 21st of May, 1847, and in the lifetime of Robert Hart, paid Hart the sum of 2001., which Hart then accepted and received in full satisfaction and discharge of the sum of 2001., parcel, &c. [646] The replication traversed the payment and acceptance of the 2001. by Hart in satisfaction and discharge. The cause was tried before Pollock, C. B., at the Surrey Summer assizes in 1850. It appeared that Robert Hart had been in the habit of receiving from the defendant the interest upon the 10001. mentioned in the declaration; that, on the 21st of May, 1847, he received 2001., in part payment of the principal sum of 10001.; and that, between the day and the time of Hart's death in 1848, he had received two payments of 201. each, for interest. On the part of the plaintiff, in reply, a deed of settlement was put in, whereby it appeared that the plaintiff and Robert Hart were jointly entitled to the money, as trustees: and it was contended that a payment to one was not a payment to the trustees. The lord chief baron, yielding to the objection, directed the jury to find for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, with interest. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, debt 10001., damages 1531. J...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gwenneth Webster v National Bank of Anguilla Ltd
...all." 14 Next, Learned Counsel Ms. Ruan referred the court toThe Practice and Law of Banking, H.P Sheldon (17th Ed) and Husband v. Davis (1851) CB 645. 15 Ms. Ruan stated that on the plain and ordinary reading of the Agreement re: Operation of Account and Agreement re: Joint Account, Ms. We......
-
Kan Sabnani and Another v Ramesh Lachmandas and Another
...... . . . The same point was decided in the case of Husband v Davis .In our judgment, all repayments made to either the first appellant or Ramesh Sabnani (or to both of them) would go towards discharging the ......
- Brewer v Westminster Bank
-
Langston v Mount Hutt Helicopters Limited HC Chch
...White v Tyndall (1888) 13 APPCAS 263. Wallace v Kelsall (1840) 7 M & W 264; 151 ER 765; Husband v Davis [1851] EngR 142; (1851) 10 CB 646; 138 ER 256; Great Republic Gold Mining Co v Hussey and McNeight (1886) NZLR 126; Bosveld v Cardup Industrial Land Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] WASC 411. dive......