Milne and Others v Marwood and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 January 1855 |
| Date | 31 January 1855 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 139 E.R. 632
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
[778] milne and others v. marwood and another. Jan. 31, 1855. Upon a negotiation for the sale of a ship, B., the seller, represented to A., the buyer, that she was, so far as he knew, as sound as a ship of her age usually was. Upon the faith of this representation, A. agreed to purchase the ship, and proceeded to make alterations in her to fit her for a voyage to Australia, for which A. at the time of the contract knew she was intended. The register proving defective, A. afterwards repudiated the bargain, and, upon a suggestion that the representation of B. as to the ship's soundness was false, brought' an action against him, charging him with a false and fraudulent representation with a view to induce A., and whereby A. was induced, to expend moneys on the ship, which but for such false and fraudulent representation he would not have done.-At the trial, the judge told the jury, that, to sustain the action, the plaintiff must prove,-that the defendant made the representation alleged,-that it was false,-that the defendant knew it to be false,-and that damage had resulted to the plaintiff. The jury returned the following verdict,-"We find for the plaintiff, but acquit the defendant of any fraudulent intention:"-Held, that, upon this finding, the verdict was properly entered for the plaintiff.-Quare, whether the plaintiff could recover as damages the amount expended by him in repairing the ship 1 This was an action for an alleged false representation by the defendants upon the sale of a ship. The declaration stated, in substance, that the defendants were the owners of a ship called the " Dowthorpe," which they had contracted to sell to the plaintiffs ; that, 15 C. B. 779. MILNE V. MAE WOOD 633 in order and with intent to induce the plaintiffs to expend moneys in and about repairing the said ship, the defendants falsely and fraudulently represented to the plaintiffs that she was sound, for anything they the defendants knew to the contrary ; and that the plaintiffs were, as the defendants intended that they should be, induced by the said false and fraudulent representation to expend moneys about repairing the ship, which but for the said false and fraudulent representation they would not have done; whereas, in truth, the said ship, at the time of the said representation of the defendants, was unsound and rotten, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loughnan v Barry and Byrne
...B. Moo. 98. Perkins v. Smith 1 Wils. 328. Gompertz v. BartlettENR 2 E. & B. 849. Polehill v. WalterENR 3 B. & Ad. 114. Milne v. MarwoodENR 15 C. B. 778. Dixon v. YatesENR 5 B. & Ad. 313. Tooke v. HollingworthENR 5 T. R. 231. Milwwod v. ForbesENR 4 Esp. 171, 173. Earl of Bristol v. Wilsomore......