Knowles and Others against Michel and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 January 1811 |
| Date | 26 January 1811 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 104 E.R. 366
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
knowles and others against michel and another. Saturday, Jan. 26th, 1811, An admission by a defendant, that so much was agreed to be paid to the plaintiff for the sale of standing trees, made after the trees bad been felled and taken away by the defendant, will support a count upon an account stated, though not for goods sold and delivered. The plaintiffs declared in assumpsit upon the common count for goods sold and delivered, the money counts, and upon an account stated. At the trial before Graham, B. at York, it was proved, that the plaintiffs had sold to the defendants some standing trees, which the defendants afterwards procured to be felled and taken away; and when Michel was served with the writ, both the defendants admitted that they had bought the trees jointly for nine guineas; but Michel said that he would pay no more than one half. On this evidence it was objected, that the action was not maintainable; the contract being for standing trees which were part of the realty. To which it was answered, that the acknowledgment of the price to be paid for the trees, made after they were felled and applied to the use of the defendants, was sufficient to sustain the count on an account stated; though there was no other item of account between the parties. The plaintiff, however, [250] was nonsuited; but the learned Judge gave him leave to move to set the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v Marshall
...Oƒ€™Sullivan v. Oƒ€™Callaghan 2 Ir. Jur. 314. Pinchon v. ChilcottENR 3 C. & P. 236. Knowles v. MichelENR 13 East, 249. Matson v. WharamENR 2 T. R. 80. Jones v. Cooper Cowper, 227. Peckham v. FariaENR 3 Doug. 13. Highmore v. Primrose 1 M. & Selw. 64. Porter v.......
-
Kennedy v Broun and Wife
...it, anid is not pjeadable, though available as evidence for the defendant to limit his liability on a quantum meruit: Knowles v. Michel, 13 East, 249 ; Hiyftmore v. Primrose, 5 M. :& Selw. 65 ò May v. King, I Ld. Eaytn. 680; Eoades v. Barnex, 1 Burr. 9. Ib was atone time: also thought that ......
-
Greene v Cole
...In Lee v. Risdon, it was held that the value of fixtures could not be recovered in assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. See also 13 East, 249, Knowks v. Michel. [1 Cr. M. & B. 266, 275, Hallen v. Bunder. 11 M. & W. 243, Clark v. Buhner.} But in trespass, damages may be recovered for taki......
-
Webber v Tivill
...although consisting of one item only, is sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to a verdict on a count in assumpsit upon an account stated. 13 East, 249, Knowles v. Michel. 5 M. & S. 65, Highmore v. Primrose. K. B. xiv.-27* 842 WEBBER V. TIVILI, 2 WMS. SAUND. 123. like lawful money of England......