Pearson v Skelton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 533
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 1 Tyr. & G. 848. Referred to, The Englishman and The Australia, [1895] P. 217; R. Leslie, Limited v. Reliable Advertising Agency, Limited [1915] 1 K. B. 655.
[504] pearson v. skelton. Excb. of Fleas. 1830.-The rule that there is no contribution among joint tort-feasors, does not apply to a case where the party seeking contribution was a tort-feasor only by inference of law, but is confined to cases where it must bo presumed that the party knew he was committing an unlawful act.-Where several persons were jointly interested in a stage-coach, and there was a partnership fund, out of which expenses were first to be paid, and the residue divided amongst them:-Held, that one of them, against whom damages and costs had been recovered in an action brought by a party to whom damage was done by the negligent driving of the coach, could not recover against another proprietor his proportion of such damages and costs. [8. C. 1 Tyr. & G. 848. Referred to, The Englishman and The Australia, [1895] P. 217 ; Ii. Leslie, Limited v. Reliable Adverlisini/ Agency, Limited [1915J 1 K. B. 655.] Assumpsit for money paid. Plea, non assumpsit. On the trial before Lord Deiiman, C. J., at the last Yorkshire Lent Assizes, it was proved that the plaintiff'and defendant, together with several other persons, were jointly interested in a public stage coach, running between Leeds and Harrowgate. On one occasion, the coach had been negligently driven by the coachman employed to drive, and had occasioned the death of a horse belonging to a person named Pickles. Pickles brought an action against the plaintiff', and recovered. The plaintiff' having paid the debt and costs in that action, sought to recover in the present action contribution from the defendant. It was objected at the trial, first, that the plaintiff and defendant being both wrongdoers, an action for contribution would not lie, and Merrywettt/ier v. A'ij'cm (8 T. K. I8(i) was cited as establishing that point; and secondly, that an action at law would not lie between parties in respect of a partnership matter, but that the plaintiff's remedy was in equity. The Lord Chief Justice nonsuited the plaintiff, with liberty to move 5$4 BAYLEY V. EIMMELL 1M. &W.B05. to enter a verdict for 61., that being the estimated amount of the defendant's contribution. Knowles now moved accordingly. The rule laid down in Merryweather v. &riran only applies...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Company Ltd
...contract, they can do no more. I will only say that 1 see no reason to doubt that under the Act, and probably apart from the Act (see Pearson v. Skelton, 1 M. & W. 504, Adamson v. Jarvis, 4 Bing. 66), the Respondents would be entitled to recover contribution from the Appellant to the exten......
-
Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Company Ltd
...contract, they can do no more. I will only say that 1 see no reason to doubt that under the Act, and probably apart from the Act (see Pearson v. Skelton, 1 M. & W. 504, Adamson v. Jarvis, 4 Bing. 66), the Respondents would be entitled to recover contribution from the Appellant to the exten......
-
The Englishman and the Australia, No. 2
...B. N. S. Merryweather v. NixanUNK 8 Term Rep. 186 Adamson v. JarvisENR 4 Bing. 66 Betts v. Gibbins 2 Ad. & Ell. 57 Pearson v. SkeltonENR 1 M. & W. 504 Palmer v. The Wick Steam Shipping CompanyELR (1894) A.C. 318 The KhediveDID=ASPM 43 L. T. Rep. 610 4 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 360 L. Rep. 5 H. of ......