Penny v Cole; Pinnel's Case

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Common Pleas
Judgment Date01 Jan 1616

English Reports Citation: 77 E.R. 237


Pinnel's Case

Followed, Foakes v. Beer, 1884, 9 App. Cas. 605; Bidder v. Bridges, 1887, 37 Ch. D. 413.

5 pinnel's case 237 [117 a] pinnel's case. Trin. 44 Eliz. Rot. 501. In the Common Pleas. [Followed, Foakes v. Beer, 1884, 9 App. Gas. 605; Bidder v. Bridges, 1887, 37 Ch. D. 413.] Payment of a lesa sum on the day in satisfaction of a greater, cannot be any satisfaction for the whole. The gift of a horse, hawk, robe, &c. in satisfaction, is good. Payment of part before the day, and acceptance, may be in satisfaction of the whale; so payment of part at a different place. The payment of part ought to be pleaded to be paid in full satisfaction; it is not sufficient to aver that it was accepted in full satisfaction. The manner of the tender, and of the payment, shall be directed by him who made them, not by him who accepts. *An acknowledgment of satisfaction by deed, is a good bar, without any thing received.* S. C. Moor. 677. See 3 Cases in Law, &c. 304. Lucas 224. 304. Pinnel brought an action of debt on a bond against Cole, of 161. for payment of 81. 10s. the llth day of Nov. 1600. The defendant pleaded, that he at the instance of the plaintiff, before the said day, sell. 1 Octob. anno 44. apud W. solvit yuerenti nl. 2s. 3d. quas quidern 51. '2s. Id. the plaintiff (a) accepted in full satisfaction of the 81. 10s. And it was resolved by the whole Court, that payment of a lesser sum on the day in satisfaction of a greater, cannot be any satisfaction for the whole, because it appears to the Judges that by no possibility, (5) a lesser sum can be a satisfaction to the plaintiff for a greater sum (a) : but the gift of a horse, (c) hawk, or robe, &c. in satisfaction is good. For it shall be intended that a horse, hawk, or robe, fyc. might be more beneficial to the plaintiff than the money, in respect of some circumstance, or otherwise the plaintiff would not have accepted of it in satisfaction. But when the whole sum is due, by no intendment the acceptance of (a) parcel can be a satisfaction to the plaintiff: but in the case at Bar it was resolved, that the payment (a) Doct. pi. 267. Bac. Ab. Accord. & Sat. A. (6) Perk. sect. 749. Co. Lit. 212. b. (A) So acceptance of a security for a lesser sum cannot be pleaded in satisfaction of a similar security far a greater. Cumber v. Wane, 1 Strange, 426. and per Lord Ellenborough, Fitch v. Button, 5 East, 232.; "though that case was said by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
2 books & journal articles
  • Specific Performance – Exploring the Roots of ‘Settled Practice’
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review Nbr. 61-3, May 1998
    • 1 May 1998
    ...example, the primary reason for the House of Lords in Foakes vBeer (1884) 9 App Cas605 not overruling Pinnel’s Case (1602) 5 Co Rep 117a, 77 ER 237 in the context of the insufficiencyof consideration in respect of a promise to accept part payment in full settlement of a money debt. Seenow a......
  • MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd: The Practical Benefit Doctrine Marches On
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review Nbr. 80-2, March 2017
    • 1 March 2017
    ...Adams and R. Brownsword, ‘Contract, Consideration and the Critical Path’ (1990) 53 MLR536, 540. Pinnel’s Case (1601) 5 Coke Reports 117a; 77 ER 237.5D & C Builders Ltd vRees [1966] 2 QB 617 (CA) 623.C2017 The Author. The Modern Law Review C2017 The Modern Law Review Limited.(2017) 80(......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT