Latham against Barber
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 November 1794 |
| Date | 19 November 1794 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 439
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
latham against barber. Wednesday, Nov. 19th, 1794. By a Navigation Act it was enacted that on a certain day the first general meeting ,of the proprietors should be held, at which the company should execute deeds under their common seal for each distinct share, " which deeds should respectively vest a certain share in each proprietor;" the plaintiff declared in assumpsit against the defendant, for not completing a contract for the purchase of some shares, that on a day prior to the first general meeting " he was lawfully entitled to " so many shares : held that this was a material averment, and the ground of a nonsuit as it could not be proved, though there was another clause in the Act by which certain persons by name (of whom the plaintiff was one) were made a corporation for the purposes of the Act, arid the money to be subscribed was to be divided into so many equal shares "which were thereby vested in the person so subscribing, &e." This was an action upon promises for the non-performance of a contract relating to some shares in a navigation. The first count in the declaration stated that the plaintiff at the time of making the promises, to wit "on the 25th of May, 1793, was lawfully entitled to five several shares of and in a certain undertaking commonly called or known by the name of the Grantham Canal Navigation;" that in consideration that the plaintiff at the request of the defendant had then and there bargained and sold to the defendant the plaintiff's right and title to the shares, the defendant undertook and promised to pay the 'plaintiff on the first of June then next, as well the sum of 15 guineas as a premium for each share, as also all such sums of money as had been before paid by the plaintiff by way of deposit; with an averment that the plaintiff had paid 101. as a deposit in respect of each share. There were other counts varying from the first in different points. Besides which the declaration contained a set [68] of counts for the non-performance of a similiar contract for eight shares; and another set respecting ten shares : but in every one of the counts, eighteen in number, it was averred that " the plaintiff was lawfully entitled to " the respective shares. At the trial at the last Nottingham Assizes before Perryn B. it appeared that the contract for the transfer of 13 shares, which was a verbal one, was entered into on the 8th of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Griffiths against Brome, Widow
...having acted with her privity and concurrence, and was (a) Vide Simpson's case, Grodb. 265. 1 Kol. Eep. 137. Clamp v. Clamp, 4 Leon. 8. 6T. R.67. LATHAM 17. BARBER 439 an adoption of his acts: and Heath J. being of this opinion directed the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff. Milles o......