Lockwood against Stannard
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1794 |
| Date | 1794 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 271
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
[482] lockwood against stannard. Friday, January 31, 1794. After a verdict for the plaintiff, with damages under 40s. on account charging that the defendant assaulted the plaintiff "and then and there, tore the plaintiff's clothes which the plaintiff then and there wore," &c. the plaintiff is entitled to no more costs than damages. The declaration, after alleging in the usual form that the defendant assaulted the plaintiff, stated in the same count that " the defendant then and there with force and violence tore, rent and damaged the plaintiff's clothes, which the plaintiff then and there wore," &e. Plea, the general issue. On the trial the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and gave Id. damages: and the Master having taxed the plaintiff his full costs, Chambre moved to set aside the taxation, on the ground that the tearing of the clothes was only an aggravation and part of the assault, and was not alleged as a (1) Vide Denn v. Dolman, post, 641, and Gwmmings v. Isaac, post, 8 vol. 183. 272 CAKLOS V. FANCOURT 5 T. K. 483. separate injury, it being stated that the plaintiff wore the clothes at the time of the assault. Holroyd opposed this rule in the first instance; and relied on Gotterill v. Tolly, ante, 1 vol. 655, and the cases there cited; where it was held, that on a general verdict for the plaintiff on such a count as the present, which charged the tearing of the clothes as a substantive fact, " and then and there tore," &c. and not as a part, or in consequence of the battery, as " and thereby tore," &o. the plaintiff was entitled to full costs. But The Court said that the contrary had been since determined in the Court of Common Pleas (a)1, where the rule was established, that unless the tearing of the clothes were at a different time, the plaintiff should have no more costs than damages, if he recovered less than 40s.; and that in this case the tearing of the clothes was evidently a part of the same transaction. Rule absolute.
English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 272
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
carlos against fancourt, in Error. Friday, January 31, 1794. A promissory note, payable on a contingency, cannot be declared on as a promissory note within the statute, 3 & 4 An. c. 9. This was an action upon promises, and was brought in the Court of Common Pleas. The first count of the declaration alleged that the defendant (below) in the life-time of A. Fancourt, the late wife of the plaintiff (below), on the 27th of July 1786, and made and signed his certain note in writing, [483] commonly called a promissory note, and thereby promised to pay to the said A. Faneourt, then being the plaintiff's wife, the sum of 101. " out of his the said defendant's money that should arise from his reversion of 431. when sold," and delivered the said note to the said A. F.; whereby and by reason of which several promises, and by force of the statute in such case made and provided, the said defendant became liable to pay to the said plaintiff the said sum of money in the said note specified, according to the tenor and effect of the said note; and being so liable, the said defendant, in consideration thereof afterwards, &c. promised to pay, &c. yet that he did not, &c. although often requested, &c. and although the said reversion of the said 431. was sold before the suing forth of the original writ, &c. The declaration contained other counts, for work and labour; money paid, &c. &c. The defendant suffered judgment to go by default; and a general judgment was entered up on the whole declaration. A writ of error was then brought; and the plaintiff in error assigned for error, that there was a general judgment on all the counts in the declaration, the first of which was founded on a supposed promissory note, as a note within the statute made concerning promissory notes, whereas it was not a note within the statute, but a contingent note ; and on which, as stated in the declaration, it appeared to be uncertain whether or not the money therein specified would ever become payable, and was therefore void in law; and that it did not appear that the note was given for value received or for any valuable or legal consideration whatever, &c. Morgan for the plaintiff in error. The note declared upon is void, and not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In The Matter of York Street Mezzanine Pty Ltd (in liq)
...(1851) 5 Eq 512 [(1851) 155 ER 798] Callandar v Howard (1850) 19 LJ CP 312 [(1850) 138 ER 117) Carlos v Fancourt (1794)5 Term Rep 482; [(1794) 101 ER 272] Clarke v Dickson (1858) EB&E 148; [(1858) 120 ER 463] Claydon v Bradley [1987] 1 All ER 522 Crawley v Crowther (1702) 2 Freem 257 [(1702......
-
Thomson Rubbers (India)
...Associated Development Pte Ltd v Loong Sie Kiong Gerald [2009] 4 SLR (R) 389; [2009] 4 SLR 389 (refd) Carlos v Fancourt (1794) 5 TR 482; 101 ER 272 (folld) Goh Chok Tong v Chee Soon Juan [2003] 3 SLR (R) 32; [2003] 3 SLR 32 (refd) Bills of Exchange Act (Cap 23, 2004 Rev Ed) ss3, 47, 57, 73 ......