Randall and Another against Raper
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 April 1858 |
| Date | 21 April 1858 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 120 E.R. 438
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 27 L. J. Q. B. 266; 4 Jur. N. S. 662; 6 W. R. 445. Discussed, Josling v. Irvine, 1861, 6 H. & N. 517. Distinguished, Borries v. Hutchinson, 1865, 18 C. B. N. S. 464. Referred to, Mullett v. Mason, 1866, L. R. 1 C. P. 561. Explained, Smith v. Green, 1875, 1 C. P. D. 94. Referred to, English and Scottish Trust Company v. Flatay, 1887, 36 W. R. 238. Discussed, Bostock v. Nicholson, [1904] 1 K. B. 739. Referred to, Wednesbury Corporation v. Lodge Holes Colliery Company, [1907] 1 K. B. 92; [1908] A. C. 323. See also Wallis v. Pratt, [1910] 2 K. B. 1003; [1911] A. C. 394.
[84] randall and another against rapbr. Wednesday, April 21st, 1858. f ?2i j.ft./3.£oy Declaration charged that defendant had sold to plaintiff seed barley, warranting '433.2K.S-fyS.it to be of a particular quality, but had delivered seed barley of an inferior quality : and it alleged, as special damage, that plaintiff, relying on the warranty, had sold the seed barley with a similar warranty to T., who had sown it and had thereby obtained a crop inferior to that which would have been produced by seed barley of the quality warranted, and so incurred damages which the plaintiff was liable to make good.-Defendant having suffered judgment by default, it was proved, on the execution of the writ of inquiry for damages, that the sale by plaintiff had taken place as alleged; and evidence was given of the pecuniary amount of the values of the crop obtained and the crop which would have been produced by seed barley of the quality warranted. It further appeared that the plaintiffs' vendee had claimed from him compensation, which the plaintiff had agreed to make; but no sum had been agreed upon, and no payment actually made.-Held that, iu assessing the damages, the jury ought to include the amount io which they considered the plaintiff had become liable to his vendee iu respect of the difference of the crops. Wightman J. dubitaute. [S. C. 27 L. J. Q. B. 266; 4 Jur. N. S. 662; 6 W. R. 445. Discussed, Josling v. Irvine, 1861, 6 H. & N. 517. Distinguished, Barries v. Hutchinson, 1865, 18 C. B. (a) Before Wightman aud Cromptou Js. BLBL, &BL.8 RANDALL V. RAPER 439 N. S. 464. Eeferred to, Mullett v. Mason, 1866, L. R. 1 C. P. 561. Explained, Smith v. Green, 1875,1 C. P. D. 94. Referred to, English and Scottish Trust Company v. Flatau, 1887, 36 W. R. 238. Discussed, Bostock v. Nicholson, [1904] 1 K. B. 739. Referred to, Wednesbury Corporation v. Lodge Holes Colliery Company, [1907] 1 K. B. 92; [1908] A. C. 323. See also Wallis v. Pratt, [1910] 2 K. B. 1003; [1911] A. C. 394.] The first count charged that defendant, by warranting thirty quarters of seed barley to be then chevalier seed barley, sold the same to plaintiffs at and for a certain price, to wit 11. 2a. 6d. per quarter, which plaintiffs paid him: yet the said seed barley was not then chevalier seed barley ; and plaintiffs, being corn-factors, and having purchased the said seed barley of defendant in the way of plaintiffs' said trade for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd v Mott Macdonald Ltd and another
...the assignment was void for champerty. 419 Mr Peter Gross QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge reviewed an earlier authority of Randall v Raper (1858) E.B. & E. 84. He said at page 706 (et seq), materially, as follows: 'In Randall v Raper… the defendant (A) sold to the plaintiff (B) seed......
-
Motor Insurers' Bureau of Singapore and another v AM General Insurance Bhd (formerly known as Kurnia Insurans (Malaysia) Bhd) (Liew Voon Fah, third party)
...2 MLJ 52 (folld) Ramli bin Shahdan v Motor Insurers' Bureau of West Malaysia [2006] 2 MLJ 116 (refd) Randall v Raper (1858) EB & E 84; 120 ER 438 (folld) Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd [2008] 2 SLR(R) 623; [2008] 2 SLR 623 (folld) State-Owned Company Yugoimpor......
-
Total Liban SAL v Vitol Energy SA [QBD (Comm)]
...[1935] AC 1 Post Office v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society LtdELR [1967] 2 QB 363 Randall v RaperENR (1858) EB & E 84; 27 LJQB 266; 120 ER 438 Telfair Shipping Corp v Inersea Carriers SA (“The Caroline P”) (No. 2)UNK [1984] 2 Ll Rep 466 Trans Trust Sprl v Danubian Trading Co LtdELR [195......
-
Higgs against Goodwin
...in the sewage water, I prefer to emploj hydrate of lime, commonly termed slacked lime, which, so far as I know, is 608 HIQGS V. GOODWIN EL. BL. & El. 83S. the cheapest and moat efficient chemical agent for effecting this purpose. But the carbonate of lime, and some others of the alkaline ea......