Ivat v Finch and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 February 1808 |
| Date | 06 February 1808 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 127 E.R. 785
Common Pleas Division
See Bewley v. Atkinson, 1879, 13 Ch. D. 298.
1 TAUNT. 139. 1VAT V. FINCH 785 cause why the damages found by the jury should not be increased to 18191., or why a new trial should not be had between the parties. Vaughan Serjt., in moving for the rule, observed, that he meant to contend that the Plaintiff was entitled to be paid for the printing, although the whole work was not completed. [139] Shepherd and Lens Serjts., upon showing cause, were desired by the Court to confine themselves to the question of the set-off. They observed, that the Plaintiff had undertaken to insure the property of the Defendant. It had been so found by the jury, and an insurance had, in fact, been effected. Considering the evidence in the manner the most favourable for the interests of the Defendant, it would appear that this insurance had been made generally on the property upon the Defendant's premises, and without any particular specification of the articles upon which it was intended that it should attach. A part therefore of this insurance must be considered as made on account of the Defendant,on account of that property which the Plaintiff had undertaken to insure ; and a correspondent proportion of the sum paid by the office would therefore be money had and received to the use of the Defendant. But it was unnecessary to consider the subject in this light; for evidence was given upon the trial to prove that a part of this insurance was made in respect of trust property, which would clearly entitle the Defendant to set off the sum received under that head against the Plaintiff's demand. Vaughan and Onslow Serjts., for the Plaintiff, observed, as to the other point, that by the general rule of law the Plaintiff was entitled, under the circumstances of this case, to recover a compensation for his work and labour, although no benefit had been derived from it to the Defendant. They cited the case of Menettyne v. Athawes, 3 Burr. 1592, in support of this position. It was true that upon the trial reliance was placed by the Defendant on a supposed custom of the trade; but the evidence given in support of that custom was not sufficient to authorize the jury in finding a verdict contrary to the general law. Upon the question of the set-off they were stopped by the Court. [140] MANSFIELD Ch. J. The evidence, as to the point which has been argued by the counsel for the Defendant, was all upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Between Edmund Henry Barker, Plaintiff, and Robert Ray and Ann his Wife, and Robert Oliver and Sarah Shepley his Wife, Frank Sotheron, and Henry Belward Ray, Defendants
...Dodd (3 Wood. 332). Doe v. Jones (1 Campb. 3ti7). Holloway v. Rakes (2 Term _Rp. 55). Higham v. Ridgway (10 i?asi, 109). /t u, v. Finch (1 Taunt. 141). [67] Peaceable v. Wesson, (4 Taunt. 16).(I) ''These documents," said Sir Thomas Plumer, in Short v. Le (2 /(to. tfe Waifc. 488), " possess ......
-
James v Salter and Another
...testator that he was possessed of leasehold property, and a party who claims under him is bound by his declarations. In Ivatt v. Finch (1 Taunt. 141), upon an issue between A. & B., whether C. died possessed of certain property, it was held, that evidence might be given of declarations made......
-
Coole v Braham
...of the son might lie received as evidence against the defendant, the execution creditor, as a person claiming under him: [vol. v. Finch (1 Taunt. 141). Where an assignor of an estate or chattel has qualified his own title by admissions before the assignment, the assignee may bo considered a......
-
George Smith v James Smith, Administrator of James Smith
...of administration, must be deemed to claim as administrator, as well as in virtue of his four years' possession. In Ivatt v. Finch (1. Taunt. 141) it was held, that, upon an issue between A. and B., whether C- died possessed of certain property, evidence might 3 BING. (N. C.) 31. SMITH V. S......