Parker against Staniland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 June 1809 |
| Date | 13 June 1809 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 103 E.R. 1043
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Distinguished, Evans v. Roberts, 1826, 5 B. & C. 832.
parker against staniland. Tuesday, June 13th, 1809. A contract by the owner of a close cropped with potatoes made on the 21st of Nov. to sell to the defendant the potatoes at so much a sack; the defendant to get them out of the ground immediately ; is not a contract for any interest in land within the 4th section of the Statute of Frauds, but the same as if the" potatoes, which had done growing 1044 PARKER V. STANILAND 11 EAST. 363. and were to be taken up immediately, had been sold in a warehouse from whence they were to be removed by the defendant. [Distinguished, Evans v. Soberts, 1826, 5 B. & C. 832-.] The plaintiff declared that the defendant was, on the 1st of January 1809, indebted to him in 5001. for^a certain crop of potatoes of the plaintiff before that time bargained and sold by the plaintiff to the defendant at his request, and by the defendant under that bargain and sale before that time accepted, gathered, dug up, taken, and carried away : and being so indebted the defendant promised to pay, &c. There was another similar count on a quantum meruit, and other general counts for goods sold and delivered, &c. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and paid 221. Is. 9d. into Court. It appeared at the trial before Bayley J. at Nottingham, that the plaintiff, being the owner of a close of about two acres, which was cropped with potatoes, agreed with the defendant on the 21st of November, to sell him the potatoes at 4s. 6d. a sack. The defendant was to get them himself, and to get them immediately. The defendant employed men to dig the potatoes on the 25th, 26th, and 27th of the same month, and got 21, 24, and 33 sacks full, and on the 4th of December he 363] got seven sacks more, and 14 about Lady-Day, the value of which was covered by the money paid into Court. But there remained about three roods of potatoes which were not dug up, and which were spoilt by the frost; and the action was brought to recover the value of these. The objection taken at the trial was, that this was an agreement for an interest in land, which not having been reduced to writing, was void by the Statute of Frauds, 29 Car. 2, c. 3, s. 4. But the learned Judge overruled the objection, and permitted the plaintiff to take a verdict for the amount; reserving leave to the defendant to move to enter a nonsuit, if the Court should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones against Flint
...interests in land. It was so held in Sainsbwry v. Matthews (4 M. & W, 343), though the vendee was to find diggers. Parker v. Staniland (11 East, 362), is in favour of the plaintiff. Jem's and Meeson, contra. Sainsbury v. Matthews (4 M. & W. 343) (as Parke B. pointed out) was a mere case of ......
-
Whitmore v Empson
...De G. M. & G. 403); Horn v. Baker (9 East, 215; 2 Smith's Lead. Cas. 161); Clark v. Crownshaw (3 Barn. & Aid. 804); Parker v. Staniland (11 East, 362); Doe d. Hanky v. Wood (2 Barn. & Aid. 724); Lingham v. Bigg* (1 Bos. & Pul. 82); T-rappes v. Barter (2 Cr. & M. 153); Bryxan, v. Wylw (1 Bos......
-
Smith against Surman
...Evans v. Roberts (5 B. & C. 838), stated, that in his opinion the turnips at the time of the sale were chattels. In Parker v. Staniland (11 East, 362), the owner of a close cropped with potatoes made a contract on the 21st of November to sell them at so much per sack, and the purchaser was ......
-
Milner against William Jordan
...67 b.). There is merely a licence to defendant to enter, as iti Doe dem. Strickland v. Spence (6 East, 120), and in Parker v, Staniland (11 East, 362). The argument of Tindal C.J. in Purchell v. Salter (1 Q. B. 219, 220), (a) June 21st, 1845, Before Lord Denman C.J., Williams and Coleridge ......