Kinder and another against Paris
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 November 1795 |
| Date | 24 November 1795 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 126 E.R. 703
IN THE COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
[561] kinder and another against paris. Tuesday, Nov. 24th, 1795. To an action brought by the assignees of an insolvent debtor, to recover money owing to him before his insolvency, in which the Plaintiffs declare, that in consideration of the money being due to the insolvent, the Defendant promised to pay it to them as assignees, it is a bad plea to say " that the cause of action first accrued to the insolvent before the Plaintiffs became assignees, and that six years had elapsed after the cause of action first accrued to the insolvent, and before the suing out the writ of the Plaintiffs." Qu. Whether in such case the Defendant might plead, that the money was first due to the insolvent more than six years before the action was brought^ and that he had made no express promise to the Plaintiffs within six years (a)11-Qu. also, Whether in such an action the Plaintiffs must not prove an express promise 1-After a party has once amended on a demurrer, the Court will not give him leave to amend again on a second demurrer. This was an action brought under the stat. 33 G-eo. 3, c. 5, by the assignees of Arthur Miller an insolvent debtor discharged out of the Fleet prison, as indorsee of a bill of exchange against the drawer. The first count of the declaration stated the drawing of the bill, the acceptance by the drawee, the indorsement by the payee to Arthur Miller before the Plaintiffs became such assignees, the refusal of payment by the acceptor, and the protest for non-payment by Miller, of all which premises the Defendant afterwards and before the Plaintiffs became such assignees, had notice. By reason whereof he became liable to pay to the said Arthur Miller, &c., and being so liable, and the said sum of money afterwards and when the said Arthur Miller was so discharged as aforesaid, and the said Plaintiffs...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S v Beyers
...supra, bl. 263; E Makiwane v Afrikaanse Pers, 1957 (2) SA 560; R v Gray, (1900) 2 K.B. 36 te bl. 41; McLeod v St. Aubyn, 1899 A.C. 549 te bl. 561; R.v. Gray, 69 L.J. Q.B. 502. Die oortreder kan deur die Hof opgeroep word omredes aan te voer waarom hy nie gestraf sal word nie. Die Prokureur-......
-
Breytenbach v De Villiers, NO en Andere
...Kock, K.A. (bygestaan deur C. P. Joubert), vir die eerste respondent het verwys na die bovermelde outoriteite asook Herbstein & van Winsen, bl. 561; Jones & Buckle, 6de druk, bl. 253, 261; Mintz c v. Bloemhof Village Council, 1922 T.P.D. 431; Parker Wood & Co. v. Badman, 1925 T.P.D. 637; Re......
-
Loubser en Andere v Suid-Afrikaanse Spoorweë en Hawens
...in onteieningsake tot groot hoogte berus op beramings en skattings, soos bv. Krause v SA Railways & Harbours, 1948 (4) SA 554 (O) op bl. 561; Union Government v Jackson and Others, 1956 (2) SA 398 (AA) op bl. 419F - G (aangehaal in die eerste passasie uit die Bonnet -saak hierbo); Estate Ma......
-
Evelyn Haddon & Co Ltd v Leojanko (Pty) Ltd
...nie, soos mnr. Viljoen te kenne gegee het. Smeekbede 2 is geoorloof in die dagvaarding (Sonia (Pty.) Ltd v Wheeler, 1958 (1) SA 555 (AA) op bl. 561) en, ofskoon smeekbede 3 afhanklik is van kansellasie, is dit nie afhanklik van die bevel van kansellasie nie. B Kansellasie word teweeggebring......