Pope v Brett
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 85 E.R. 1083
COURT OF KING'S BENCH
a WJHg. SAUND. 29J. HIL. 22 AND 23 CAR. II. REGIS 1083 [292] 48. pope versus brett. S. C. 2 Keb. 736. An award that A. shall be paid by B. money due for task-work, and then A. should pay 251. to B. and that the parties should give each other a general release is void in the whole, for the uncertainty what sum should be paid for task-work. Assumpsil. The plaintiff declares upon three several promises for money, for work and labour, and for other money expended. The defendant pleads in bar an award, by which it was awarded that the said William Pope (the plaintiff) should be satisfied and paid by the said John Brett (the defendant) the money due and payable to the said William Pope, as well for task-work as for day-work, and then the said William, his executors, administrators or assigns should pay, or cause to be paid, to the said John Brett, his executors, administrators or assigns, the sum of 251. of lawful money of England, on the 29th day of April then next following, in the then mansion-house of the said John Brett, in full payment and satisfaction of and for all debts, claims and demands whatsoever; and it was further awarded that upon payment of the said money each of the parties should give to the other a general release of all controversies, &c.; and the defendant avers that the task-work and day-work in the whole amounted to 121. 10s. and no more, and that the defendant paid and satisfied the 121. 10s. to the plaintiff, being all the money due to him for any task-work and day-work; and this, &c. wherefore, &c.; to which plea in bar the plaintiff demurs in law. And Sympson for the plaintiff argued that the plea was bad, because the award was void for uncertainty, inasmuch as the arbitrator has not ascertained what sura should be paid for [293] the task-work and day-work, but has left it in as great an uncertainty as it was before. And then the averment of the defendant of the sum it amounted to, and that he has paid it, is nothing to the purpose, because his averment cannot make the award good which was void at the time of making it; wherefore he concluded that the award was void, and consequently the plea insufficient. Saunders for the defendant agreed that the award as to this clause was void ; but he said that here there is a sufficient award without that clause; for the award is that the plaintiff should pay 251. in certain to the defendant, and that general releases should be given to both parties, which is sufficient of itself without the other clause of task-work and day-work. And an award may be void in one clause, and good for the residue. That was granted by the Court; but the Court said that here, if the clause of task-work and day-work be void, as it is admitted to be, the whole award is void ; for it appears that...
To continue reading
Request your trial