Price against Seaman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1825 |
| Date | 01 January 1825 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 107 E.R. 1155
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
£525] price against seaman (in error). 1825. Where in assumpsit plaintiff declared that he had bargained and agreed with one J. E. for the purchase of certain freehold houses at a certain price, and defendant in consideration that plaintiff would sell and give up to him (defendant) the said bargain, and suffer him to become the purchaser of the houses; promised to pay 401., and averred that plaintiff did give up the bargain to defendant, and suffered him to become the purchaser, and that defendant did accordingly become the purchaser and take the said bargain and obtain a conveyance from J. E. on the terms aforesaid, but that defendant had not paid the 401. Held, after verdict for the plaintiff, that it must then be presumed that the bargain between plaintiff and J. E. was in writing, and that the giving up of that contract to defendant was a sufficient consideration for his promise. Assumpsit by Seaman against Price, on. a special agreement. The first count of the declaration stated that the plaintiff below, before the making of the promise 1156 PRICE V. .SEAMAN 4 B. &C.526. of defendant below, had bargained and agreed with one J. E. for the purchase by him, plaintiff, of three freehold houses, situate, &c., of and from the said J. E., to be conveyed to the said plaintiff, and at the price of 6001. And the defendant was desirous of obtaining the said bargain, and becoming the purchaser of the said houses^ instead of the plaintiff, to wit, at, &c., and thereupon heretofore, to wit, on, &c., at, &c., in consideration that the plaintiff, at the request of the defendant, would sell and give up to the plaintiff the said bargain, and would suffer and permit the said defendant to become the purchaser of the said houses from the said J. E., instead of him the plaintiff, defendant undertook to pay him 401. And the plaintiff averred that he, confiding in that promise, did sell and give up the bargain to defendant, and did suffer and permit him to become the purchaser of the houses of and from J. E., instead of plaintiff; and the defendant did accordingly become such purchaser, and did take the said bargain, and obtain a conveyance to him, defendant, of the said houses, on the terms aforesaid. Breach, non-payment of the 401. (There were other special counts which it is unnecessary to state, as no objection was made to them.) Plea, general issue. The jury having...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forth and Others v Stanton, Widow
...of assets is implied and that it was a good consideration for the defendant's promise. 2 Bing. 437, Seaman v. Price. 10 Moore, 34, S. C. 4 B. & C. 525, S. C. in error.] See the observations of Buller J. as to assignments of choxes in action, in 4 T. R, 340, Master v. Miller. The assignee of......
-
Stennel v Hogg
...12 Moore, 241, S. C. 4 Bing. 646, Harris v. Beaiian. 1 Moo. & P. 633, S. C. 4 B. & C. 138, Lambert v. Taylor. 6 D. £ R. 188, S. C. 4 B. & C. 525, Price v. Seaman. 7 D. & R. 14, S. C. 7 B. & C. 423, Payne v. Wilson. 3 Y. & Jerv. 458, Edwards v. Bennett. 2 Dow. & Cl. 288, Humphry* v. Plait. ......