Price v Harrison
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 June 1860 |
| Date | 09 June 1860 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 141 E.R. 1308
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 29 L. J. C. P. 335; 6 Jur. N. S. 1345. Referred to, Brown v. Liell, 1885, 16 Q. B. D. 230.
[617] price v. harrison. June 9th, I860. [S. C. 29 L. J. C. P. 335; 6 Jur. N. S. 1345. Eeferred to, Brown v. Liell, 1885, 16 Q. B. D. 230.] Held, that the defendant was entitled, under the common-law jurisdiction of the court, to have an inspection of letters which in the course of a negotiation for taking a farm he as agent for his brother had written to the plaintiff, but of which he had'kept no copies,-it being sworn that the plaintiff's claim in the action was founded upon such letters, and that the inspection was necessary for his defence thereto. The declaration contained a count alleging that it was mutually agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that the plaintiff should demise and lease to the defendant a certain farm, lands, and premises of the plaintiff, to wit, a farm known as Paradise Farm, near to the town of Lechlade, in the county of Gloucester, and that the defendant should accept such lease and become tenant to the plaintiff of the said farm, lands, and premises, and that the defendant should forthwith after the making of the said agreement pay to the plaintiff the amount of certain acts of husbandry upon the said farm, and the tillages, dressings, half-dressings, straw, crops, fixtures, and other things upon the said farm, according to the valuation of the same hy two persons) &c. : and, after alleging, amongst other things, that, although the said acts of husbandry, tillages, dressings, half-dressings, straw, crops, fixtures, and othef things h^,d been duly valued as aforesaid by two persons at and for a large sum,; to wit, &oj., assigned for breach that the defendant had not paid the same, or any part thereof. There was also a count for money which it was alleged the defendant had contracted to pay in respect of the plaintiff's having agreed to relinquish and give up to 8C.B. sr.S.)618. PRICE V. HARRISON 1309 and in favour of the defendant and at his request a certain farm, lands, and premises, with the appurtenances, and the benefits and advantages of certain work, tillages, and acts of husbandry before then done, and manure and materials before then expended in and about the cultivation and improvemeut thereof, together with certain turnips, grass, herbage, underwood, crops, chattels, and effects then growing and [618] being thereon, and for fixtures and chattels then agreed to bo bargained, sold, and relinquished and given up by the plaintiff to the defendant at his request, and to be by the defendant then had and taken to his own use. The defendant obtained a judge's order to inspect certain letters, upon which it was surmised the plaintiff intended to rely for the purpose of establishing the agreement alleged in the declaration. The affidavit upon which the application for the order waa founded stated that the defendant, as agent for his brother, was in treaty with the plaintiff for renting a farm and premises ; that, during such treaty, the defendant wrote several letters to the plaintiff, copies of which he did not keep and had not in his possession; that he believed that it was upon these letters or others from his brother that the plaintiff' relied to establish the agreement declared on ; and that the defendant had just ground to defend the action. There was also an affidavit from the defendant's attorney, who deposed, that, since the commencement of the action, he saw in the possession of the plaintiff's attorneys what appeared to him to be several letters, and asked to be allowed to inspect them ; that the plaintiff's attorneys allowed him to see one letter of the defendant to the plaintiff, but declined to allow him to see the others without the consent of the plaintiff; that he called on the plaintiff's attorneys again on a subsequent day, when they informed him that the plaintiff' declined to allow the letters to be inspected; and that, in his judgment, it was necessary that the defendant should have inspection, to enable him to plead. Powell, on a former day in this term, moved to rescind this order, on the ground that it was granted [619] upon insufficient materials. The defendant does not state in his affidavit that the letters he seeks to inspect relate to or are material to his case. [Erie, C. J. He states that they form the foundation of the contract upon wliich the plaintiff declares.] This is a mere attempt to ascertain by an inspection whether the plaintiff can prove his case by means of these letters. The rule laid down by the court of .Exchequer in Hunt v. Hewitt, 1 Exch. 236, is as follows: "The right of a plaintiff in equity is limited,-first, to a discovery confined to the questions in the cause,-secondly, of such material documents as relate to his (the plaintiffs) case oa the trial; and does not extend to the discovery of the manner in which the defendant's case is to be established (), or to evidence which relates exclusively to his case. The party applying, therefore, who is in the same situation as a plaintiff in equity, must shew,-first, what is the nature of the suit and of the question to be tried in it; and it seems also that he should depose in his affidavit to his having just ground to maintain or defend it,-secondly, the affidavit ought to state with sufficient distinctness the reason of the application and the nature of the documents, in order that it may appear to the court or judge that the documents are asked for the purpose of enabling the party applying to support his case, not to find a flaw in the case of tlje opponent, and also that the opponent may admit or deny the possession of them. To this affidavit the opponent may answer, by swearing that he has no such documents, or that they relate exclusively to his own case, or that he is for any sufficient reason privileged from producing them; or he [620] may submit to shew parts, covering the remainder, on affidavit that the part concealed does not in any way relate to the applicant's case. The same course would be pursued in equity." So, in Doe d. Avery v. Longford, 1 Bail Court Cases, 37, 21 Law J., Q. B. 217, a plaintiff in ejectment sought to inspect and take copies of certain deeds, in order that he might 1 8 able to prove his title to the premises. It appeared that the assignee of certain premises for the residue of a term, became seised in fee of adjoining premises, and demised both to R. and S., and that subsequently the interest of the assignee in both was transferred to the defendant, who, after the determination of the term of R. and H., retained possession of the leasehold premises. The application was made by the (a) See Smith v. The Duke of Beaufort, 1 Hare, 507, Boltmi v. The Corporation of Liverpool, 1 Mylne & K. 88, The Attorney-Geiuiral v. The Corporation of London, 12 Beavan, 8. 1310 PETCE V. HARBISON 8 C. B. (N. S.) 621. plaintiff as reversioner, and he prayed for an order to inspect the conveyance by which the leaseholds were assigned and the freeholds conveyed to the defendant,-alleging that the latter had obliterated the boundaries between the two, and that the premises now sought to be recovered formed part of the leaseholds. It was held by Erie, J., that the plaintiff was entitled to inspect the assignment of the term, but not siich part of the deed as related to the conveyance of the freeholds. His lordship proceeded upon the case of Button v. The I'wyoration of Liverpool, 1 Mylne & K. 88, which lays rlowri the principle, that "a party has a right to the production of deeds sustaining his own case affirmatively, but not those which are not immediately connected with the support of his own title, and which form part of his adversary's. He cannot call for those which, instead of supporting his title, defeat it by entitling his adversary." [Williams, J. The nearest case for you is ti/taihvell v. Hhaihuell, ante, vol. vi., p. 679, There, in an action against executors upon an agreement under which the plaintiff claimed certain arrears of an annuity alleged to be due to him [621] from the testator, the defendants pleaded, that, after the making of the agreement, and before the accruing of the causes of action, it was agreed between the testator and the plaintiff that the agreement should be, and the same accordingly was, waived and rescinded, and that the testator should be, and he accordingly was, exonerated from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owen and Another against Nickson and Another
...are entitled to inspect the memorandum; if on no other ground, under the well known rule stated by Williams J. in Price v. Harrison (8 C. B. N. S. 617, 634), that where a plaintiff'founds his declaration, or a defendant his plea, upon a document in writing, whether or not it be under seal, ......
-
Tobakin v Dublin Southern Districts Tramways Company
...the appeal without calling on Horan, for the respondent. r. d. m. (1) In the King's Bench Division, before Gibson and Boyd, JJ. (1) 8 C. B. (N. S.) 617. (2) 68 L. T. (N. S.) (3) 35 L. J., Ch. 545. ...
-
Cuffe v Wilson
...Bench. CUFFE and WILSON. Price v. HarrisonENR 8 C. B., N. S., 617. Bull v. ClarkENR 15 C. B., N. S. 851. Shadwell v. Shadwell 28 Law J., N. S., C. P. 275. iv Appendix. A. T. 1866. Queen's Bench CUFFE v. WILSON.* Jan. 20. Inspection of Tars was a motion for liberty to inspect and take a copy......