Langridge v Levy
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1837 |
| Date | 01 January 1837 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 863
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. M. & H. 134; 6 L. J. Ex. 137; 1 Jur. 659; affirmed 4 M. & W. 337; 1 H. & H. 325. Considered, Winterbottom v. Wright, 1842, 10 M. & W. & W. 109; Longmeid v. Holliday, 1851, 6 Ex. 761; Blackemore v. Bristol and Exeter Railway, 1858, 8 E. & B. 1053; Collis v. Selden, 1868, L. R. 3 C. P. 497. Discussed, Alton v. Midland Railway, 1865, 19 C. B. N. S. 213; George v. Skivington, 1869, L. R. 5 Ex. 1. Referred to, Eastwood v. Bain, 1858, 3 H.& N. 738; Barry v. Crosskey, 1860, 2 J. & H. 17; Swift v. Winterbotham, 1873, L. R. 8 Q. B. 252; reversed on one point (nomine Swift v. Jewsbury), L. R. 9 Q. B. 301; Peek v. Gurney, 1873, L. R. 6 H. L. 412; Cattle v. Stockton Waterworks, 1875, L. R. 10 Q. B. 458; Hosegood v. Bull, 1876, 36 L. T. 620; Heaven v. Pender, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 511; Wilkinson v. Downton, [1897], 2 Q. B. 58; Tallerman v. Dowsing Radiant Heat Company, [1900], 1 Ch. 6; Cavalier v. Pope, [1906] A. C. 432. And see Earl v. Lubbock, [1905] 1 K. B. 253.
519] langridge . levy. Exch. of Pleas. 1837. - In case, the declaration stated, that L., the father of the plaintiff, bargained with the defendant to buy of him a gun, to wit, for the use of himself and his sons ; and the defendant then, by falsely and fraudulently warranting the gun to have been made by N., and to be a good, safe, and secure gun, then sold the gun to L., for the use of himself and his sons, for 241. ; whereas in truth and in fact the defendant was guilty of great breach of duty, and of wilful deceit, negligence, and improper conduct, in this, that the gun was not made by N., nor was a good, safe, and secure gun, but on the contrary thereof, was made by a very inferior maker to N., and was a bad, unsafe, ill-manufactured and dangerous gun, and wholly unsound and of very inferior materials; of all which the defendant, at the time of such warranty aad sale, had notice : and that the plaintiff', knowing and confiding in the said warranty, used the gun, which but for the warranty he would not have done ; and that the gun being in the hands of the plaintiff, by reason and wholly fti consequence of its weak, dangerous, and insufficient construction and materials, burst and exploded : whereby the plaintiff was greatly wounded, &c., and wholly by means of the premises, breach of duty, and improper conduct of the defendant, lost the use of his hand : - Held, (after verdict for the plaintiff on the plea of not guilty, and on other pleas denying the warranty, and that the gun was unsafe, &c.), that the action was maintainable. [S. C. M. & H. 134; 6 L. J. Ex. 137; 1 Jur. 659: affirmed 4 M. & W. 337; 1 H. & H. 325. Considered, Wiuterbottom v. Wright, 1842, 10 M. & W-. 109; Ijigmeid v. Holliday, 1851, 6 Ex. 761 ; Blakemore v. Bristol and Exeter Railway, 1858, 8 E. & B. 1053 ; Collis v. Selden, 1868, L. K. 3 C. P. 497. Discussed, Alton v. Midland Railway, 1865, 19 C. B. N. S. '1 1 3 ; George v. Skivingtmi, 1869, L. R. 5 Ex. 1. Referred to, Eastwood v. Bain, 1858, 3 H. & N. 738 ; Barry v. Orosskey, 1860, 2 J. & H. 17 ; Swift v. Winterbotiiam, 1873, L. R. 8 Q. B. 252 : reversed on one point (nomine tfwift v. Jewsbwry), L. R. 9 Q. B. 301 ; Peek v. Gurney, 1873, L. R. G H. L. 412; Cattle v. Stockton Waterworks, 1875, L. R. 10 Q. B. 458; Hosegood v. Hall, 1876, 36 L. T. 620; Heaven v. Fender, 1883, 11 Q. 13. D. 511; Wilkinson v. Downtou, [1897] 2 Q. B. 58; Tallennun v. Dowsing Radiant Heat Company, [1900] 1 Ch. 6; Cavalier v. Pope, [1906] A. C. 432. And see Earl v. Lubbodi, [1905] I K. B. 253.] Case. The declaration stated, that whereas one George Langridge, the father of the plaintiff, on the 1st of June, 183,"., at the request of the defendant, bargained with him to buy of him a, certain gun, to wit, for the use of himself and his sons, at and for a certain price, to wit, the sum of 241., and the defendant then, by falsely and fraudulently warranting the said gun to have been made by Nock, and to be a good, safe, and secure gun, then sold the said gun to the said George Langridge, for the use of himself and his sons, for the said sum of 241. then paid by the said George Langridge to the defendant for the same : whereas in truth and in fact the defendant was guilty of great breach of duty, and of wilful deceit, negligence, and improper conduct, in (c) In Doe v. Williams, 5 B. & Ad. 783, articles in contemplation of a marriage by words in priesenti were held to operate as a covenant to stand seised. 864 LANGRIDC4E V. LEVY 2M. &W. 520.. this, that the said gun, at the time of the said warranty and sale, was not made liy Nock, nor was it a good, safe, and secure gun, but, on the contrary thereof, was made and constructed by a maker very inferior as a gun-maker to Nock, and was then and at all times a, very bad, unsafe, ill-manufactured, and dangerous gun, and wholly unsound and of very inferior materials; of all which premises the defendant, at the time of the making of the said warranty, and of the said sale, had full knowledge and notice. And the plaintiff in fact says, that he, knowing and confiding in the said warranty, did use and employ thu said gun, which but for the said warranty he would not have done : and that afterwards, to wit, on [520] the 10th December, 18M5, the aaid gun being then in the hands and use of the plaintiff, by reason and wholly in, consequence of the weak, dangerous, and insufficient and unworkmanlike manufacture, construction, and materials thereof, then and whilst the staid gun was so in use by the plaintiff, burst anil exploded, became shattered, and went to pieces; whereby and by reason whereof the plaintiff was greatly cut, wounded, maimed, &c. &c., and wholly by means of the premises, broach of duty, and improper conduct of the defendant, lost, and is for ever deprived of the use of his hand, &c. &c. Pleas, first, not guilty ; secondly, that the defendant did not warrant the said gun to be made by Nock, and to be a good, safe, and secure gun, in manner and form, &c. ; thirdly, that the gun was not a bad, unsafe, ill-manufactured, and dangerous gun, and wholly unsound, and of very inferior materials, as in the declaration alleged ; fourthly, that the gun...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BSkyB Ltd and Another v HP Enterprise Services UK Ltd and Another
...because of EDSC's involvement in the following ways. Sky say that the question of the contracting party is not relevant and rely on Langridge v Levy (1837) 2 M & W 519; affd. 4 M & W 337. They say that the relevant question is: were the representations made to Sky made by or on behalf of E......
-
Smith v Eric S Bush
...did the accountants know that the accounts were required for submission to the plaintiff and use by him? That appears from the case of Langridge v. Levy [ (1837) 2 M. & W. 519] as extended by Cleasby, B. in George v. Skivington; [ (1869) L.R. 5 Ex. 1, 5] and from the decision of that good ......
-
M'Alister or Donoghue (Pauper) v Stevenson
...to the decided cases to see if they can be construed so as to support the Appellant's case. One of the earliest is the case of Langridge v. Levy, 2 M. & W.,519. It is a case often quoted and variously explained. There a man sold a gun which he knew was dangerous for the use of the purchase......
-
Magill v Magill
...though there was no contract of suretyship. It was the combination of fraud and damage that entitled the plaintiff to sue. In 1837, in Langridge v Levy8, Parke B said that the principle laid down by Pasley v Freeman was that a ‘mere naked falsehood’ would not give a right of action, but if ......