Kemble v Farren
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 June 1829 |
| Date | 13 June 1829 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 172 E.R. 574
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Subsequent proceedings with annotations, 6 Bing. 141.
574 KEMBLE V. FARREN 3 CAB. & P. 624. court op common pleas. Adjourned Sittings at Westminster, after Easter Term, 1829, before Lord Chief Justice Tindal. June 13th, 1829. kemble v. farren. (Where it appeared on the record, that an agreement sued on was made by the plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the other proprietors of a theatre, evidence of the declarations of one of such other proprietors was held admissible on the part of the defendant) [Subsequent proceedings with annotations, 6 Bing. 141.] Assumpsit for the breach of an agreement, dated the 6th of June, 1827, stated to be made between the plaintiff, Mr Charles Kemble, on behalf of himself and the other proprietors of Covent Garden Theatre, of the one part, and the defendant of the other pait. The principal question in the cause was, whether there had been a change in the management of the theatre so as to justify the defendant in withdrawing from it, under a particular clause in the agreement. The proprietors, in addition to the plaintiff, were Mr. Willett and Captain Forbes. It appeared that certain papers had been signed by the proprietors, giving particular powers to Mi. Faweett, as stage manager. [624] Campbell, for the defendant, on his cross-examination of Mr Robertson, the treasurer of the theatre, who stated that he had seen such papers, asked, if Mi. Willett had not told him that the papers were delivered to Mr. Fawcett. Wilde, Serjt., objected to evidence of anything said by Willett, who was not the plaintiff in tbe cause...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd (formerly General Motors UK Ltd)
...common law applied the rule against penalties to all kinds of contracts including contracts for personal services. One early example is Kemble v Farren (1829) 6 Bing 141 which concerned the engagement of the well-known actor Charles Kemble to perform at Covent Garden Theatre. 37 However, al......
-
Jobson v Johnson
...the full amount of a penalty without going to a jury to prove his actual loss. The result under the Act was explained by Tindal C.J. in Kemble v. Farren (1829) 6 Bing 141 at 148 as follows: "But that a very large sum should become immediately payable in consequence of the non-payment of a v......
-
Stockloser v Johnson
...for royalties was exhausted. 11Many authorities were cited to the learned Judge. It was contended that the penalty law as laid down in Kemble v. Farrant (6 Bingham, 141), Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Limited v. New Garage & Motor Company Limited (1915 Appeal Cases, page 79) had no applica......
-
Murray v Leisureplay Plc
...of the kind that clauses stipulating the amount of compensation are precisely designed to avoid. As Tindal CJ put it in Kemble v Farren (1829) 6 Bing 141 at p 148, a dictum approved in the Dunlop case, even where damages accruing from a breach can be accurately ascertained, a liquidated dam......
-
Restitution
...equity and statute, the common law fashioned its own rules after equity. The pre-Judicature common law is exemplified in Kemble v Farren(1829) 6 Bing 141 at 148; 130 ER 1234 at 1237 where Tindal CJ said: If therefore on the one hand the Plaintiff had neglected to make a single payment of £3......
-
Lecture
...1172 at 1194; [2015] UKSC 67 at [8], per Lord Neuberger and Lord Sumption. 37 Astley v Weldon (1801) 2 Bos & P 346. 38 Kemble v Farren (1829) 6 Bing 141. 39 Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis[2016] AC 1172 at 1194; [2015] UKSC 67 at [8], per Lord Neuberger and L......
-
DISTINCTION BETWEEN 'LIQUIDATED DAMAGES' AND 'PENALTY
...only in not paying a sum of money, and the sum stipulated is a sum greater than the sum which ought to have been paid (Kemble v. Farren 6 Bing 141). This though one of the most ancient instances is truly a corollary to the last test Whether it had its historical origin in the doctrine of th......