Nosotti v Page
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 January 1851 |
| Date | 14 January 1851 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 138 E.R. 255
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
10C.B.643. NOSOTTI V. PAGE 255 [643] nosotti v. page. Jan. 14, 1851. In debt, the particulars delivered were as follows :-" This action is brought to recover the sum of Is. damages for the detention of the debt for which this action is brought, together with costs of suit; the debt of 861. 9s. having been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff since the action was brought."-At the trial, the plaintiff proved a debt to the extent of 521. 19s. only, and the verdict was entered for that sum and Is. damages :-Held, that it was properly entered. This was an action of debt, for goods sold and delivered, and for money found due upon an account stated. Plea, never indebted. The particulars of demand delivered with the declaration, were as follows :- " This action is brought to recover the sum of Is. damages for detention of the debt for which this action is brought, together with costs of suit,-the debt of 861. 9s. having been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff since the action was brought." The cause was tried before Jervis, C. J., at the sittings at Westminster after last term. The defence,-that the credit for the goods had not expired at the time of action brought,-was negatived by the jury, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff for 521. 19s. the debt proved, and Is. damages. D. Keane now moved, pursuant to leave, to enter a nonsuit, or to reduce the verdict to Is., in conformity with the particulars, or for a new trial. The particulars shewing that the debt for which the action was brought had been satisfied, the plaintiff ought to have been nonsuited. Beaumont v. Greathead (ante, vol. ii. p. 494) is an authority in point: there, A., being sued on a joint and several promissory note made by himself and by B. and C., pleaded that he paid to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff accepted and received, the moneys in the declaration mentioned, in full satisfaction and discharge of the debt [644] and damages in the declaration mentioned; and it was held that the plea was sustained by proof that the amount of the note was paid by C.; and that the jury were not bound to give nominal damages, though the money was not paid until some time after the maturity of the note. In Gell v. Burgess (ante, vol. vii. p. 16), a declaration in debt contained three counts,-the first on a bill of exchange, the second for money lent, and the third upon an account stated, concluding, to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial