Morris v McCullock
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 May 1763 |
| Date | 13 May 1763 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 27 E.R. 289
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Lib. Reg. 1762, B. fo. 315.
Case 226.-morris against M'CuLLOCE. 13th May 1763. Money advanced for procuring a commission in the Marines. The purchaser, after six months, being discovered to have worn a livery, was discharged. The money decreed to be refunded with interest.-[Lib. Reg. 1762, B. fo. 315.] Bill by plaintiff, to be repaid a sum of 200 which he had paid the defendant for procuring him a commission of Lieutenancy in the Marines. The case was : The defendant is a linen draper, and entered into treaty with the plaintiff, who was servant to Captain [433] Bendish, and wore a livery, to procure him a commission in the Marines for 200. The plaintiff, not having the money, applied to his master, to lend him 200 to pay for the commission, which he refused, and gave as a reason, that it would be very improper for him to be instrumental in getting the plaintiff, who was a servant, into the Marines as an officer; and that all the officers of the corps would be offended at it. And Captain Bendish, who was examined as a witness in the cause, said, That the defendant was in the passage of his house when he gave his reason to the plaintiff for refusing to lend him the money; and that he left the parlour-door a-jar, on purpose that the defendant might hear the reason; and most assuredly believes that the defendant did hear it. The treaty, however, went on; and the plaintiff, having secured the money some other way, agreed for the commission ; and accordingly the defendant, being acquainted with Mrs. Stot, who was, or pretended to be, the wife of a captain Stot, and was intimately acquainted with the late admiral Boscawen, did, by her means and interest with the admiral (who was then one of the Lords of the Admiralty), obtain a commission of second lieutenant for the plaintiff, who paid him for it 200, of which the defendant paid Mrs. Stot 50 for her service. The plaintiff went to Portsmouth with his commission; and after having served about six months, was discovered to have been a livery servant; upon which the officers refused to roll with him, and sent a letter of it to the secretary of the Admiralty, which was laid before the Lords of the Admiralty ; and the secretary, by their direction, wrote a letter in answer, commending them, and ordered the plaintiff to be discharged. And it appeared in evidence, that the plaintiff was discharged in consequence of that letter, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Opai Kunangel Amin [1991] PNGLR 1; Supreme Court Reference No 2 of 1982; Re Kunangel; In the Matter of a Reference under s18(2) of the Constitution by and Independent Tribunal appointed pursuant to s27(7)(e) of the Organic Law on the Duties and Responsibilities of Leadership; and In the Matter of a reference by the Public Prosecutor pursuant to s27(2) of the Organic Law on the Duties and Responsibilities of Leadership in respect of Opai Kunangel Amin
...972, Marks v Commonwealth (1964) 111 CLR 549, Marshall v English Electric Co Ltd [1945] 1 All ER 653, Morris v M'Cullock (1763) Amb 432; 27 ER 289, Parker v Lord Clive (1769) 4 Burr 2419; 98 ER 267, The State v Independent Tribunal; Ex parte Sasakila [1976] PNGLR 491, Vertue v Lord Clive (1......
-
The State v Officer–in–Charge of the Wabag Corrective Institution and the Magistrates of the Kundis Village Court; Ex Parte Pende Kinakope [1982] PNGLR 308; SCR No 6 of 1981; State v OIC Wabag Corrective Institution [1982] PNGLR 308
...972. Marks v Commonwealth (1964) 111 CLR 549. Marshall v English Electric Co Ltd [1945] 1 All ER 653. Morris v M'Cullock (1763) Amb 432; 27 ER 289. Parker v Lord Clive (1769) 4 Burr 2419; 98 ER 267. State, The v Independent Tribunal; Ex parte Sasakila [1976] PNGLR 491. Vertue v Lord Clive (......
-
Hopkins v Prescott
...2 Vent. 187 ; Law v. Law (supervisorship of excise), 3 P. Wms. 391, Cases temp. Talb. 140; Mmris v. M'Cullock (commission in the marines), Ambler, 432. For cases not within the statute of Edward, see Godbolfs case (office of bailiff of a hundred), 4 Leon. 33 ; Ellis v. Riddle (office held i......
- O'day v Commonwealth