Newcomb v De Roos
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 November 1859 |
| Date | 05 November 1859 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 121 E.R. 103
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, AND THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 29. L. J. Q. B. 4; 6 Jur. N. S. 68; W. R. 5.
[271] cases ahgued and determined in the queen's bench, in , michaelmas term, XXIII. victoria. i The Judges who usually sat in Bane in this Term were: Cockburn C.J., Wight-man J., Hill J., Blackburn J. newcomb AND another against de Eoos. Saturday, November 5th, 1859. Defendant, residing and carrying on business in London, wrote to plaintiffs, residing and carrying on business in S., ordering them to do certain work for him. The letter was received by plaintiffs, and the work was done, in S. A summons having issued, upon plaintiffs' application, against defendant, in the County Court of S., by leave of the Registrar, to recover the amount due for such work: Held, that the whole cause of action arose within the district of that Court, and that the Registrar therefore had jurisdiction to issue the summons, under stat. 9 & 10 Viet. c. 95, s. 60, and stat. 19 & 20 Viet. c. 108, s. 15. [S. C. 29 L. J. Q. B. 4; 6 Jur. N. S. 68; 8 W. R. 5.] B. C. Robinson moved for a prohibition to the Judge of the County Court of Stamford, to restrain [272] further proceedings in a plaint issued from that Court by the plaintiffs against the defendant. It appeared from the affidavit that the plaintiffs, who were stationers residing and carrying on business at Stamford, had sued the defendant, who was a vendor of patent medicines in Berners Street, London, to recover 31. 4s. lOrl. balance of account for advertisements inserted by the plaintiffs in certain newspapers, on the defendant's order. The arrangement between the plaintiffs and the defendant had been that certain advertisements were to be inserted by the plaintiffs for the defendant, for which the plaintiffs were to receive payment in goods, and which goods were delivered by the defendant in London to the plaintiffs' order. All orders given by the defendant, or on his behalf, to the plaintiffs for the insertion of advertisements, and all communications relating to the transactions between the plaintiffs and the defendant, were written in London, and transmitted through the post thence to Stamford. The defendant did not reside or carry on business within the jurisdiction of the Stamford County Court. In the particulars of demand the defendant waa debited with 211. 3s. 7d., for various advertisements, and with 11. 10s. for "cash,"...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation
...says. Not until I have his answer am I bound. I do not agree with the observations of Mr Justice Hill in ( Newcomb v. De Roos 1859) 2, Ellis & Ellis at page 275. 7 Now take a case where two people make a contract by telephone. Suppose, for instance, that I make an offer to a man by telephon......