Mechelen against Eliza Wallace
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 May 1837 |
| Date | 06 May 1837 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 389
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 2 N. & P. 222; 6 L. J. K. B. 217. Referred to, Angell v. Duke, 1875, L. R. 10 Q. B. 178.
[49] mechelen against eliza wallace. Friday, May 6bh, 1837. Declaration stated that defendant wished plaintiff to hire of her a house, and furniture for the same, at the rent of, &c. ; and thereupon, in consideration that plaintiff would take possession of the said house partly furnished, and would, if complete furniture were sent into the said house by defendant in a reasonable time, become tenant to defendant of the said house, with all the said furniture, at the aforesaid rent, and pay the same quarterly from a certain day, to wit, &b., defendant promised plaintiff to send into the said house, within a reasonable time after plaintiff's taking possession, all the furniture necessary, &c. Held, that the defendant's agreement to send in furniture was an inseparable part of a contract for an interest in lands, and therefore came within stat. 29 Car. 2, c. 3, s. 4, which, in the case of such contract, requires the agreement, or a memorandum thereof, to be in writing. [S. C. 2 N. & P. 222; 6 L. J. K. B. 217. Referred to, Angell v. Duke, 1875, L. R. 10 Q. B. 178.] Assumpsit. The declaration stated that whereas before and at the time of the making of the promise, &c., the plaintiff was desirous and intended to hire and take as tenant a furnished house and premises suited for the convenient accommodation and reception of the plaintiff and his family, and of divers, to wit, &c., female scholars and boarders, in order that a school, consisting of such number of boarders and scholars, might be carried on in and upon such furnished house and premises by the plaintiffs wife ; of which desire and intention the defendant, before and at the time, &c., had notice :-" And whereas, also, the defendant at the same time was possessed of a certain house and premises in part furnished, and was desirous that the plaintiff should take and hire, at a certain rent, viz., 1701. per annum, the same house and (a) Williams J. was absent. See p. 14, ante. (6) See Shaw v. Robberds, 6 A. & E. 75. 390 MECHELEN V.WALLACE 7 AD. & E. SO. premises, with the said furniture and all other furniture necessary for the completely furnishing the same for the purpose aforesaid ; and thereupon, to wit on the 14th day of May, A.D. 1835, in consideration that the plaintiff, at the request of the defendant, would take possession of the same house and premises so partly furnished as aforesaid, and would, if the furniture necessary for the completely furnishing the said house and premises for the purpose aforesaid should be sent into the said house and premises by the defendant within a reasonable time, become the tenant to the [50] defendant of the said house and premises, with all the furniture aforesaid, at the rent aforesaid, and pay the same rent quarterly, commencing from a certain day then in that behalf agreed upon, to wit the 25th day of the said month of May, the defendant promised the plaintiff that she the defendant would, within a reasonable time after the plaintiff should have so taken possession of the same house and premises, send into the said house and premises all the furniture necessary for the completing of the furnishing of the said house with furniture, of good quality, and suited for the purpose aforesaid, to wit," &c. (describing the furniture to be sent in). The declaration then stated that plaintiff, relying, &c., did, on May 25th, at defendant's request, take possession of the said house and premises so partly furnished, and remained in possession of the same until the expiration of such reasonable time, &c., to wit, &c. And, although plaintiff would have become tenant as aforesaid, tind...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forth and Others v Stanton, Widow
...entire, and this part of it being void, it was void altogether. Ibid, and accord. 6 A. & E. 459, Head v. Baldrey. 2 N. & P. 217, S. C. 7 A. & E. 49, Mechelen v. Wallace. 2 N. & P. 224, S. C. (See, however, 2 Cr. & J. 94, Wood v. Benson; and also 1 Cr. & M. 101, Lord Falmouth v. Thomas, per ......
-
Farrington v Donohoe
...309. Souch v. StrawbridgeENR 2 C. B. 808. Crowhurst v. LaverackENR 8 Exch. 208. Lavery v. TurleyENR 6 H. & N. 239. Mechelen v. Wallace 7 A. & E. 49. King . SearsENR 2 Cr. M. & R. 48. COMMON LAW SERIES. 075 FARRINGTON v. DONOHOE.* A parol agreement to maintain a child, known to be about five......
-
Savage v Canning
...5 M. & W. 456. Kelly v. WebsterENR 12 c. B. 283. Chater v. BeckettENR 7 T. R. 201. Grimshaw v. LeggeENR 8 B. & C. 324. Mechelen v. Wallace 7 A. & E. 49, 55, 56. Buttermere v. HayesENR 5 M. & W. 456. Vaughan v. HancockENR 3 C. B. 766. Hodgson v. Johnson 1 E. Bl. & E. 689. Green v. Saddington......
-
Thomas Raikes, and Robert Raikes the Younger, against Todd
...of Mercantile Law, p. 382, &c. (2d ed.). (c) 2 Tyrwh. 93. S. C. 2 Cr. & J. 94. See Head v. Baldrey, 6 A. & E. 459. Mechelen v. Wallace, 7 A. & E. 49. SAD. &E. 852. RAIKES V. TODD 1061 appropriated to the particular sura advanced, and that therefore the liability was diminished by the divide......