Jones against Flint
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 113 E.R. 285
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. 2 P. & D. 594; 9 L. J. Q. B. 252. Referred to, M'Manus v. Cooke, 1887, 35 Ch. D. 688; Metropolitan Railway v. Fowler, [1892] 1 Q. B. 181; [1893] A. C. 416.
jones againtt flint. 1839. Plaintiff and defendant orally agreed (in August) that defendant should give 451. for the crop of corn on plaintiffs land, and the profit of the stubble afterwards; that plaintiff was to have liberty for his cattle to run with defendant's; and that defendant was also to have some potatoes growing on the land, and whatever lay grass was in the fields; defendant was to harvest the corn, and dig up the potatoes; and plaintiff was to pay the tithe. Held, that it did not appear to be the intention of the parties to contract for any interest in land, and the case was, therefore, not within the Statute of Frauds, 29 C. 2, 286 JONES V. FLINT 101Di.ftE.7H. c. 3, a. 4, but a sale of goods and chattels, as to all but the lay grass, and, as to that, a contract for the agistment of defendant's cattle. [S. C. 2 P. & D. 594; 9 L. J. Q. B. 252. Referred to, M'Manus v. Cooke, 1887, 35 Ch. D. 688; Metropolitan Railway v. Fowler, [1892] 1 Q. B. 181: [18931 A. C. 416.] Debt, The declaration stated that defendant, to wit on, &c., was indebted to plaintiff in 451., as well for a certain crop of growing wheat, and a certain crop of growing barley, of the plaintiff, before then bargained and sold by plaintiff to defendant at his request, and by defendant, under and by virtue of that bargain and sale, accepted, reaped, cut down, had, taken, and carried away, as also for a certain crop and divers quantities of potatoes of plaintiff, before then bargained and sold by plaintiff to defendant at his request, and by defendant, under and by virtue of that bargain and sale, accepted, dug up, had, taken, and carried away; as also for the use of certain land of plaintiff, and the eatage of grass, clover, and stubble thereon growing, and being [754] by plaintiff before then let to defendant at his request, and by defendant, according to such letting, had and used in and for the depasturing of cattle for a long time before then elapsed ; and in 451. on an account stated (a)1. Pleas. 1. As to all but 351. lls. 10d., nunquam indebitatus. Issue thereon. 2. As to 51., parcel of the 351. lls. 10d., payment before the commencement of the suit, and acceptance in satisfaction and discharge of 51. Replication, that defendant did not pay, and defendant did not accept, &c., in manner, &c. Issue thereon. 3. As to 301. lls. 10d, other parcel, &c., tender before the commencement of the suit. Replication, denying the tender. Issue thereon. On the trial before Bosanquet J., at the Denbighshire Spring Assizes, 1837, it was proved that, in August 1835, the plaintiff and defendant agreed orally that the defendant should give 451. for the crop of corn on the plaintiffs land, and the profit of the stubble afterwards; that plaintiff was to have liberty for his cattle to run with the defendant's; that defendant was also to have some potatoes growing on the land, and whatever lay grass was in the fields. Defendant was to harvest the corn, and dig up the potatoes; and plaintiff was to pay [755] the tithe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duppa, Executor of Baskerville v Mayo
...this decision, disclaimed impeaching the principle of Crosby v. Wailswrn-th, but decided on the additional facts in the case before them. 10 A. & E. 753, Jones v. Flint. 2 Perr, & D. 594, S. C. Where a contract is within the statute, but is not in writing, it is, as a contract, void altoget......
- Attorney-General (New South Wales) v Hill & Halls Ltd
-
King v David Allen and Sons Billposting Ltd
...Before O'Beien L.C. and Ronak and Molony L.JJ. (1914. No. 10,617.) DAVID ALLEN & SONS, BILLPOSTING, LIMITED, and KING ‘Jones v. Flint’ 10 A. & E. 753, 759. Ackroyd v. SmithENR 10 C. B. 164. Bailey v. StephensENR 12 C. B. (N. S.), at p. 113. Baily v. de CrespignyELR L. R. 4 Q. B. 180, at p. ......
-
Eastwood against Kenyon
...Patteson, Williams, and Coleridge Js. (b) 5 M. & W. 456. The same point arose in Williams v. Burgess, 10 A. & E. 499; and Joint v. Flint, 10 A. & E. 753. 484 EASTWOOD V. KEN YON 11 AD. A B. MS. Thomas v. Cook (8 B. & C. 728, 732), that if the plaintiff, at the request of the defendant, paid......