John Price against Easton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 January 1833 |
| Date | 17 January 1833 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 518
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 1 N. & M. 303; 2 L. J. K. B. 51. Approved, M'Gruther v. Pitcher, [1904] 2 Ch. 308.
[433] john price against easton. Thursday, January 17th, 1833. Declaration stated that W. P. owed the plaintiff 131., and that in consideration thereof, and that W. P., at the defendant's request, had promised defendant to work for him at certain wages, and also, in consideration of W. P. leaving the amount which might be earned by him in the defendant's hands, he, the defendant, undertook and promised to pay the plaintiff the said sum of 131. Averment, that W. P. performed his part of the agreement. Judgment arrested, because the plaintiff was a stranger to the consideration. [S. C. 1 N. & M. 303; 2 L. J. K. B. 51. Approved, M'Gruther v. Pitcher, [1904] 2 Ch. 308.] Declaration stated that one William Price was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of 131., being the balance of a larger sum due for the price of a certain timber carriage sold and delivered to him; and that the defendant, in consideration thereof, and in consideration that the said William Price, at the request of the defendant, had undertaken and faithfully promised the defendant to work for him, the defendant, at certain wages agreed upon between them, and in consideration of William Price leaving the amount which might be earned by him in the defendant's hands, he, the defendant, undertook and promised to pay the plaintiff the sum of 131. Averment that William Price did work for the defendant, and earned a large sum of money, and (a) See Cook v. Leonard, 6 B. & C. 351, where several are cited by Bayley J. (V) See Irving v. Wilsm, 4 T. E. 485. Morgan v. Palmer, 2 B. & C. 729. 4 B. & AD. 434. DOE V. HARES 519 left the same in his, defendant's, hands. Breach, non-payment to the plaintiff of 131. Plea, non-assumpsit. The plaintiff having obtained a verdict, a rule nisi was obtained by Campbell for arresting the judgment, on the ground that the plaintiff was a mere stranger to the consideration; and he cited Bourne v. Mason (1 Vent. 6), and Crow v. Bogers (1 Str. 592); and distinguished the case from Dutton v. Poole (2 Lev. 210), where tenant in fee-simple being about to cut down timber for his daughter's portion, the defendant, his heir at law, in consideration of his forbearing so to do, promised to pay a sum of money to the daughter, and the action by the husband of the daughter was held to be well...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Bart v British West Indian Airways Ltd
-
Barber v Fox
...S. C.] The consideration to support an assumpsit must move from the plaintiff. 1 Vent. 6, Bourne v. Mason. 1 Str. 592, Grow v. Rogers. [4 B. & Ad. 433, Price v. Easton. 1 N. & M. 303, S. C. 5 A. & E. 548, Lilly v. Hays. 1 N. & P. 26, S. C.] Must be such as he has the means of performing or ......
- Coulls v Bagot's Executor and Trustee Company Ltd
- Trident General Insurance Company Ltd Vmcniece Bros Pty Ltd