Procter against Burdet
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 87 E.R. 44
IN THE COURT KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS, EXCHEQUER.
cask 31. procter against burdet. In covenant on indenture of apprenticeship to find the apprentice in meat, drink, .lodging, and all other things necessary, a breach assigned in the words of the covenant is sufficient.-S. C. 3 Lev. 170. Yelv. 39. 1 Sid. 30. Ray. 14. 3 Lev. 170,319. 4 Mod. 188. Lutw. 329. 1 Show. 252. Cro. Jac. 202, 486. Carth, 110, 125. 2 Mod. 138. 10 Mod. 227, 443. 11 Mod. 78, 133. 12 Mod. 327, 406. Stra. 208, 229, 231. 4 Bac. Abr. 17. 1 Ld. Ray. 106, 968, 1140. Comyns, 89, 376. An action of covenant was brought by an apprentice, setting forth the indenture, by which the defendant, his master, had covenanted to find and allow the plaintiff meat, drink, lodging, and all other things necessary, during such a time; and the breach was as general as the covenant, viz. that he did not find him meat, drink, lodging, et alia necessaria. The plaintiff had judgment by nil dicit; and upon a writ of enquiry brought, entire damages were given against the defendant. And in a writ of error upon this judgment, the error assigned was, that the breach was too general, and that entire damages were given, amongst other things, for alia necessaria, and doth not say for what; and a case was cited in the point in Triiity term 16 Jac. 1, where the judgment was reversed for this very reason (a). The counsel contra argued, that that which is required in an action of covenant is, that there may be such a certainty, as the defendant may plead a former recovery in bar if he be sued again ; and therefore one need not be so particular in assigning of the breach upon a covenant as upon a bond ; for in a bond for performance of covenants, where there is a covenant to repair, if it be put in suit, it is not sufficient to (a) Astel v. Mills, Cro. Jac. 436. 3 MOD. 70. MICHAELMAS TERM, 1 JAC. 2. IN B. E. 45 say, that the house is out of repair, but you must shew how (a); but in a covenant it is enough to say, that it was out of repair. [70] If, in this case, the plaintiff had shewed what necessaries were not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewsly against Budd
...Rep. 79 ; Evans v. Gilbert, 4 Term Rep. 436.-And see the case of Dighton v. Granville, 4 Mod. 248. 524 MICHAELMAS TERM, 7 WILL. 3. IN B. R. 3 MOD. 69. is not, and there are several of the parish that live out of the town, and yet they are all hound to contribute. Besides, they that live on ......
-
Farrow v Chevalier
...several other persons; held well. Holt 176, S. C. Diversity. 1 Lev. 94. Cro. Jac. 486. Cro. Car. 176. 1 Brownl. 23. 2 Mod. 176. 2 Jon. 125. 3 Mod. 69. Vi. Ld. Raym. 106. Covenant by the master against his servant, on a covenant not to buy or sell without the master's leave within two years;......
-
The King against Dangerfield
...of Bolt's Poor Laws, 1 vol. page 119 to 128, where all the cases upon this subject are collected. 44 TRINITY TERM, 1 JAC. 2. IN B. R. 3 MOD. 69. said Mr. Dangerfield died on the Monday following. Mr. Frances was indicted for this murder; and upon not guilty pleaded was tried at the Old Bail......
-
Crommelin v The Marquis of Donegal
...2 B. & Ad. 278. Pitt v. WilliamsENR 5 Ad. & El. 885. Gale v. ReedENR 8 East, 80. Bradshaw's caseUNK 9 Rep. 61. Procter v. BurdettENR 3 Mod. 69. Pudsey v. NewsamENR Yel. 44. CASES AT LAW. 423 M. T. 1847. Queen' sBench. CROMMELIN v. THE MARQUIS OF DONEGAL. Nov. 9, 12. • By indenture the def......