Reade v Lamb
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 January 1851 |
| Date | 20 January 1851 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 483
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 2 L M & P 67, 20 L J E x 161 See Britan v Rossiter, 1879, 11 Q B D 123
[130] readis v lamb Jan 20,1851-To an action of assumpsit upon a guarantee, the defendant pleaded that the promise declared on was a special promise for the debt of another , and tint no agreement in respect thereof, nor any memorandum or note thereof in writing, was signed by the defendant -Held bad, ou special demurrer, as amounting to an argurnentatrve denial of the contract or pronrrse alleged in the declaration [8 C 2L M &P 67, -20 L J Ex 1GL See £ntam v Rossitei, 1879, 11 Q B D 12J] 1 Aasumpsrt upon a guarantee The declaration stated that, in consideration that tjie plaintiff would, at the defendant's request, lend and advance to one Lewis Le Page 484 READE 1' "LAMB 6 EX 131 the sjuni of 501, the defendant promised the plaintiff repayment thereof on ,i ceitani day | Averments that the plaintiff did advance the sum of 501 , that the period foi repayment had elapsed, but that the defendant had not repaid the plaintiff Plea, under the 4th section of the Statute of Frauds, that the piomise in the declaiation alleged was a special pronnse for the debt of another peison, and that no agreement in respect thereof, not any memorandum or note thereof in writing, was signed by the cjefendarit Special demurrer, alleging for cause that the plea waa an argumentative deni&l of the contract or promise alleged in the declaration, and amounted to the general issue Joinder rn demurrer Hodwell in support of the demurrer The plea is clearly bad, for the reasons assigned on special demurrer. The case of Leaf v Tuton (10 M As VV .593) i.s a decisive authorrty rn the plaintiff's favour It was there held that a defence under the 17th seetron of the Statute of Frauds annot wrth impunity be made the subject of a special plea, inasmuch as such a defence may be grven in evidence under the plea which denies the contract or promise alleged In Buttemeie v Hayek (3 M A; \V 456), it w&s also held that a defence under the 4th section, as in the present case, is admissible in evidence under the general issue Those cases are, therefore, decisive of the present question In Magys v Ame* (4 Biug 490), a plea sinnlai to the present was held goad, but that case cannot be consrdered aa a binding authority since the later [131] decrsrons, and, indeed, nr Leaf v Tuton, Farke, B , says, that it must now be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Savage v Canning
...C. B. 283. Buttermere v. HayesENR 5 M. & W. 456. Vaughan v. HancockENR 3 C. B. 766. Carrington v. RootsENR 2 M. & W. 248. Reid v. LambENR 6 Ex. 130. Falmouth v. ThomasENR 3 Tyr. 26; 1 Cr. & M. 89. Harvey v. GrahamUNK 6 Nev. & M. 762. Planche v. ColburnENR 8 Bing. 14. Archard v. HornerENR 3 ......
-
Leroux v Brown
...cannot be enforced on either side, is as a contract void altogether." That doctrine was acted upon in the recent case of Reade v. Lamb, 6 Exch. 130. It was there said in argument,-"The 17th section says that no contract for the sale of goods for the price of 101. or upwards ' shall be allow......
-
Corrigan v Woods
...and WOODS. Kirtland v. PounsettENR 2 Taunt. 145. Howard v. ShawENR 8 M. & W. 118. Carrington v. RootsENR 2 M. & W. 248. Reade v. LambENR 6 Exch. 130. Hellier v. SillcoxUNK 19 L. J. Q. B. 295. Leroux v. BrownENR 12 C. B. 801. Gibson v. Kirk 1 Q. B. 850. Hearne v. Tomlin 7 Peake, N. P. 3rd Ed......
-
Phillip Alfred Williams, Appellant; Richard Wheeler, Respondent
...C. J. That seems contrary to the decision of the Exchequer in Oarrington v. Hoots, 2 M. & W. 248, which was confirmed by Reade v. Lamb, 6 Exch. 130.] Those cases were considered by latoikk v. Broimi. [Byles, J. The [312] words in the 4th and 17th sections are different: in the former, they ......