Mayfield against Wadsley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1824 |
| Date | 01 January 1824 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 107 E.R. 766
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 5 D. & R. 224; 3 L. J. K. B. O. S. 3. Referred to, Hallen v. Runder, 1834, 1 C. M. & R. 277; 3 Tyrw. 968.
mayfibld against wadsley. 1824. A. being the occupier of a farm, quitted the same on the 25th of March 1821, and was succeeded in the possession by B. A. had sown forty acres with wheat, and it appeared that at a meeting between A. and B. in February 1821, A. asked B. if he would take the forty acres of wheat at 2001., telling him, that if he did not, he should not have the farm. B. said that he would take it. A person present then valued the dead stock, and having so done, asked to whom he was to value it; B. said that it was to be valued to him, and then promised to pay A. for the wheat and the dead stock on a given day, and he did pay a sum of money on account. B. afterwards had possession of the farm, the growing wheat, and the dead stock: Held, that, in indebitatus assumpsit for crops bargained and sold, and goods sold and delivered, the contract for the dead stock was distinct from any contract for the sale of the growing wheat, and the possession of the farm, and therefore that A. was entitled to recover to that amount: Held, also, by Bayley and Holroyd Js., Littledale J. dissentiente, that as B. had had the growing wheat, and had made a part payment on account, A. was entitled in this action to recover the remainder of the price agreed to be paid for it. Where a plaintiff has recovered a verdict for a sum of money, composed of several items, some of which he was not in strict law entitled to recover under the declaration in that action, but which he would be clearly entitled to recover by declaring in a different form, the Court will not reduce the .damages. Per Abbott C.J. [S. C. 5 D. & R. 224 ; 3 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 3. Referred to, Hallen v. Bimder, 1834, 1C. M. & R. 277; 3 Tyrw. 968.] Indebitatus assumpsit for crops of wheat, hay, and corn, and for goods bargained and sold to the defendant, and goods sold and delivered. Plea, non-assumpsit. At the trial before Hullock B. at the last Spring Assizes for the county of Lincoln, it appeared, that the plaintiff being the occupier of a farms, quitted the same on the 25th of March 1821, and was succeeded by the defendant's son-in-law, George May-field. The plaintiff had sown forty acres with wheat; and it appeared by the testimony of a witness who valued the crops, that in February 1821 a verbal agree- SB. &C.358. MAYFIELD V. WADSLEY 767 ment was made between the plaintiff and the defendant, and that [358] on that-occasion the plaintiff asked the defendant if he would take the forty acres of wheat at 2001., telling him, that if he did not he should not have the farm; the defendant then said that be would have the wheat. The witness then proceeded to value the dead stock, and after having ascertained its value to be 401. 8s. 6d., asked to whom it was to be valued, the defendant said to him. There was a machine on the farm, which was also valued at 41. 10s. Wadsley afterwards said to Mayfield, " Have you any objection to give me possession of the farm ;" and upon Mayfield's asking when he would pay him, Wadsley said, that if he would meet him on the 8th of March he would pay him the money for the wheat and the dead stock, and the machine. It appeared further, that about a fortnight before the trial, the defendant acknowledged that he had paid 751. on account of this money, but said that he would pay no more. Upon this evidence the learned Judge told the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict for the whole sum sought to be recovered, if they were of opinion that the defendant had agreed to pay for the wheat to be taken by George Mayfield, because in that case there was a part performance of the contract, George Mayfield having had the wheat, and the defendant having paid 751. on account.' The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 1691. 18s. 6d., the balance due after deducting the 751. A rule nisi was obtained in Easter term last...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Savage v Canning
...v. AutyENR 4 B. Moore, 542; 2 Br. & B. 99. Gray v. HillENR Ryan & Moody, 420. Griffith v. YoungENR 12 East, 513. Mayfield v. WadsleyENR 3 B. & C. 357. Mavor v. PyneENR 3 Bing. 285. Bragg v. Cole 6 B. Moore, 114. Harman v. ReeveENR 18 C. B. 587. Davenport v. DaviesENR 1 M. & W. 570. Law v. T......
-
Harman v Reeve
...within the statute. But a contract may be within the statute, though the statute does not apply to the whole of it: Mayfield v. Wadsley, 3 B. & C. 357, 5 D. & E. 224; Mechden v. Wallace, 7 Ad. & E. 49, 2 K & P. 224. It may be sought to take the case out of the statute by suggesting that the......
-
Scorell v Boxall, and Another
...Ld. Raym. 182) us reported in Lord Raymond's Reports, and cited by Holroyd, if., in the case of Mat/field v. Waddey (5 D. & R. 224; H. C. 3 B. & C. 357); and the right of going oa the land to cut the wood being merely an easement, and conferring no interest in the land. He cited also the ca......
-
Mechelen against Eliza Wallace
...but the proof failed as to a portion of it, by reason of the statute ; consequently, there was a variance. In Mayfield v. Wadsley (3 B. & C. 357), where there was a contract 7AD.ftE.es. MECHELEN V.WALLACE 391 for the interest in a farm, and for growing crops, and likewise for dead stock, it......