Pasley and Another against Freeman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1789 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 100 E.R. 450
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 2 Sm. L. C. 66, 11th ed. 1903. Questioned, Evans v. Bicknell, 1801, 6 Ves. 186. Approved, Clifford v. Brooks, 1806, 13 Ves. 132. Applied, Collins v. Evans, 1844, 5 Q. B. 827. Referred to, Ex parte Oakes and Peek, 1867, L. R. 3 Eq. 624; 2 H. L. 325; Hyde v. Bulmer, 1868, 18 L. T. 294. Discussed and applied, Ramshire v. Bolton, 1869, L. R. 8 Eq. 299. Referred to, Schroeder v. Mendl, 1877, 37 L. T. 454; Joliffe v. Baker, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 273; Smith v. Chadwick, 1884, 9 App. Cas. 195; Ex parte Carling, 1887, 56 L. J. Ch. 324; Deny v. Peek, 1889, 14 App. Cas. 356; Wilkinson v. Downton [1897], 2 Q. B. 58. Dictum adopted, Allen v. Flood [1898], A. C. 73. Referred to, Tallerman v. Dowsing Radiant Heat Company [1900], 1 Ch. 5; De Lassalle v. Guildford [1901], 2 K. B. 221; Cackett v. Keswick [1902], 2 Ch. 464; Read v. Friendly Society of Stonemasons [1902], 2 K. B. 739; Nash v. Calthorpe [1905], 2 Ch. 249.
[51] pasley and another against freeman. 1789. A false affirmation, made i ft, by the defendant with intent to defraud the plaintiff, whereby the plaintiff ;, receives damage, is the ground of an action upon the case in the nature of deceit. _ In such an action, it is not necessary that the defendant should be benefited by the deceit, or that he should collude with the person who is. [1 East, 318. 2 Ditto, 92. 3 B. & P. 367. 10 Vez. 475. 12 East, 634, (.).] [S. C. 2 Sm. L. C. 66, llth ed. 1903. Questioned, Evans v. Bicknell, 1801, 6 Ves. 186. Approved, Clifford v. Brooks, 1806, 13 Ves. 132. Applied, Collins v. Evans, 1844, 5 Q. B. 827. Referred to, Ex parte Oakes and Peek, 1867, L. R. 3 Eq. 624 ; 2 H. L. 325; Hyde v. Bulmer, 1868, 18 L. T. 294. Discussed and applied, Bamshire v. Boltan, 1869, L. R. 8 Eq. 299. Referred to, Schroeder v. Mendl, 1877, 37 L. T. 454; Joliffe v. Baker, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 273; Smith v. Chadwick, 1884, 9 App. Gas. 195; Ex parte Carling, 1887, 56 L. J. Ch. 324; Deny v. Peek, 1889, 14 App. Gas. 356; Wilkinson v. Dovmton [1897], 2 Q. B. 58. Dictum adopted, Allen v. Flood [1898], A. C. 73. Referred to, Tallerman v. Dowsing Radiant Heat Company [19001, 1 Ch. 5; De Lassdle v. Guildford [1901], 2 K. B. 221 ; Cackett v. Keswick [1902], 2 Ch. 464; Read v. Friendly Society of Stonemasons [1902], 2 K. B. 739; Nash v. Calthorpe [1905], 2 Ch. 249.] This was an action in the nature of a writ of deceit; to which the defendant pleaded the general issue. And after a verdict for the plaintiffs on the third count, a motion was made in arrest of judgment. The third count was as follows: "And whereas also the said Joseph Freeman, afterwards, to wit, on the 21st day of February in the year of our Lord 1787, at London aforesaid, in the parish and ward aforesaid, further intending to deceive and defraud the said John Pasley and Edward, did wrongfully and deceitfully encourage and persuade the said John Pasley and Edward, to sell and deliver to the said John Christopher Falch divers other goods, wares, and merchandizes, to wit, 16 other bags of cochineal of great value, to wit, of the value of 26341. 16s. Id. upon trust and credit; and did for that purpose then and there falsely, deceitfully, and fraudulently, assert and affirm to the said John Pasley and Edward, that the said John Christopher then and there was a person safely to be trusted and given credit to in that respect; and did thereby falsely, fraudulently, and deceitfully, cause and procure the said John Pasley and Edward to sell and deliver the said last-mentioned goods, wares, and merchandizes, upon trust and credit, to the said John Christopher; and in fact they the said John Pasley and Edward, confiding in and giving credit to the said last-mentioned assertion and affirmation of the said Joseph, and believing the same to be true, and not knowing the contrary thereof, did afterwards, to wit, on the 28th day of February in the year of our Lord 1787, at London aforesaid, in the parish and ward aforesaid, sell and deliver the said last-mentioned goods, wares, and merchandizes, upon trust and credit, to the said John Christopher; whereas in truth and in fact, at the time of the said Joseph's making his said last-mentioned assertion and affirmation, the said John Christopher was not then and there a person safely to be trusted and given credit to in that respect, and the said Joseph well knew the same, to wit, at London aforesaid, in the parish and ward aforesaid. And the said Johu Pasley and 3T. R. B. PASLEY V. FREEMAN 451 Edward further say, that the said John Christopher hath not, nor hath any other person on his behalf, paid to the said John Pasley and Edward, or either of them, the said sum of 26341. 16s. Id. last mentioned, [52] or any part thereof, for the said last-mentioned goods, wares, and merchandizes; but on the contrary the said John Christopher then was, and still is, wholly unable to pay the said sum of money last mentioned, or any part thereof, to the said John Pasley and Edward, to wit, at London aforesaid, in the parish and ward aforesaid; and the said John Pasley and Edward aver that the said Joseph falsely and fraudulently deceived them in this, that at the time of hia making his said last-mentioned assertion and affirmation, the said John Christopher was not a person safely to be trusted or given credit to in that respect as aforesaid, and the said Joseph then well knew the same, to wit, at London aforesaid, in the parish and ward aforesaid; by reason of which said last-mentioned false, fraudulent, and deceitful assertion arid affirmation of the said Joseph, the said John Pasley and Edward have been deceived and imposed upon, and have wholly lost the said last-mentioned goods, wares, and merchandizes, and the value thereof, to wit, at London aforesaid, in the parish and ward aforesaid; to the damage," &c. Application was first made for a new trial, which, after argument, was refused : and then this motion in arrest of judgment. Wood argued for the plaintiffs, and Russell for the defendant, in the last term : but as the Court went so fully into this subject in giving their opinions, it is unnecessary to give the arguments at the Bar. The Court took time to consider of this matter, and now delivered their opinions seriatim. Grose, J.-Upon the face of this count in the declaration, no privity of contract is stated between the parties. No consideration arises to the defendant; and he is in no situation in which the law considers him in any trust, or in which it demands from him any account of the credit of Falch. He appears not to be interested in any transaction between the plaintiffs and Faleh, nor to have colluded with them; but he knowingly asserted a falsehood, by saying that Falch might be safely entrusted with the goods, and given credit to, for the purpose of inducing the plaintiffs to trust him with them, by which the plaintiffs lost the value of the goods. Then this is an action against the defendant for making a false affirmation, or telling a lie, respecting the credit of a third person, with intent to deceive, by which the third person was damnified ; and for the damages [53] suffered, the plaintiffs contend that the defendant is answerable in an action upon the case. It is admitted, that the action is new in point of precedent: but it is insisted that the law recognises principles on which it may be supported. The principle on which it is contended to lie is, that wherever deceit or falsehood is practised to the detriment of another, the law will give redress. This proposition I controvert; and shall endeavour to shew, that in every case where deceit or falsehood is practised to the detriment of another, the law will not give redress; and I say that by the law, as it now stands, no action lies against any person standing in the predicament of this defendant for the false affirmation stated in the declaration. If the action can be supported, it must be upon the ground that there exists in this case, what the law deems damnum cum injuria. If it does, I admit that the action lies; and I admit that upon the verdict found, the plaintiffs appear to have been damnified. But whether there has been injuria, a wrong, a tort, for which an action lies, is matter of law. The tort complained of is the false affirmation made with intent to deceive ; and it is said to be an action upon the case analogous to the old writ of deceit. When this was first argued at the Bar, on the motion for a new trial, I confess I thought it reasonable that the action should lie : but, on looking into the old books for cases in which the old action of deceit has been maintained upon the false affirmation of the defendant, I have changed my opinion. The cases on this head are brought together in Bro. tit. Deceit, pi. 29, & in Fitz. Abr. I have likewise looked into Danvers, Kitcbins, and Comyns, and I have not met with any case of an action upon a false affirmation, except against a party to a contract, and where there is a promise, either express or implied, that the fact is true, which ia misrepresented : and no other case has been cited at the Bar. Then if no such case has ever existed, it furnishes a strong objection against the action, which is brought for the first time for a supposed injury, which has been daily committed for centuries past; for I believe there has been no time when men have not been constantly damnified by the fraudulent misrepresentations of others : and if such an action would have lain, there certainly has been, and will be, a plentiful source of litigation, of 452 PASLEY V. FREEMAN 3 T. R. 54. which the public are not hitherto aware. A variety of cases may be put: suppose a man recommends an estate [54] to another, as knowing it to be of greater value than it is ; when the purchaser has bought it, he discovers the defect, and sells the estate for less than he gave; why may not an action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roder UK Ltd v Titan Marquees Ltd and Others
...(and still requires) a guarantee to be in writing if it is to be enforceable. What every law student may not know, however, is that Pasley v Freeman (1789) 3T.R. 51 decided that a representation by one person that another person was creditworthy was actionable if made fraudulently. Since or......
-
Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers (Asset Management) Ltd and Another
...... doubt that there you would say that everything would be taken into view that would go most against the wilful wrongdoer–many things which you would properly allow in favour of an innocent mistaken ... Pasley v. Freeman , decided more than 200 years ago, marks the emergence of the tort of deceit: (1789) 3 ......
-
Hedley Byrne & Company Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd
...defined, and it is with this damage that the earlier cases were more concerned. It was not until 1789 that Pasley and Another v. Freeman, 3 T.R. 51, recognised and laid down a duty of honesty in words to the world at large—thus creating a remedy designed to protect the economic as opposed t......
-
Stuart v Rabobank Australia Ltd
...v Taylor [1939] VLR 119 Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2015) 236 FCR 199; [2015] FCAFC 50 Pasley v Freeman (1789) 100 ER 450; [1775-1802] All ER Rep 31 Pertzel v Qld Paulownia Forests Ltd [2008] 2 Qd R 526; [2008] QCA 287 Phelan v Melbourne Health [2019] VSCA 205 R ......
-
The Fundamentals Of A Civil Asset Recovery Action - Part 1
...(1989) (Sweet & Maxwell - London), at p. 1012, the "modern development" of the tort of deceit dates from Pasley v. Freeman, (1789) 3 T.R. 51. this case, a defendant represented to a plaintiff that a third party was creditworthy. This representation was false. When the party who had suff......
-
Table of Cases
...2 Lloyd’s Rep 301, QBD 103 Packer v Packer [1954] P 15, [1953] 3 WLR 33, [1953] 2 All ER 127, CA 126 Pasley v Freeman (1789) 3 Term Rep 51, 100 ER 450, [1775–1802] All ER Rep 31, Ct of KB 126 P-B (A Minor) (Child Cases: Hearings in Open Court), Re; sub nom Re PB (Hearings in Open Court); Re......
-
Table of cases
...239 Paris v Stepney Borough Council, [1951] AC 367, [1951] 1 All ER 42 (HL) ........ 32 Pasley v Freeman (1789), 3 Term Rep 51, 100 ER 450 (KB) .............................. 336 Paso Services Ltd v Ratz, 2008 SKQB 356 ......................................................... 295 Pate v Gal......
-
Table of cases
...E.R. 42 (H.L.) ............................................................................. 32 Pasley v. Freeman (1789), 3 Term. Rep. 51, 100 E.R. 450 (K.B.) ........................ 332 Paso Services Ltd. v. Ratz, 2008 SKQB 356 ........................................................ 292 ......
-
Table of Cases
...No. 698, 2000 BCSC 548 ................................................................... 291 Pasley v. Freeman (1789), 3 Term. Rep. 51, 100 E.R. 450 (K.B.) ........................ 315 Pateman v. Ross (1988), 68 Man. R. (2d) 181, [1988] M.J. No. 640 (Q.B.) ......................................