Roche v Champain
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 May 1847 |
| Date | 24 May 1847 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 154 E.R. 5
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 5 D. & L 16 L. J. Ex. 249.
roche v. champain. May 24, 1847. -Debt for money had and received, money lent, '- and on an account stated, to the amount of 191. 10s. Plea of set-off of 501. The particulars of demand claimed 61. 10a. for money lent; at the trial the defendant merely proved a set-off of 61. 10s.:-Held, that he was not entitled to the verdict. [S. 0. 5 D. & L. 121 ; 16 L. J. Ex. 249.] ; Debt. The declaration contained three counts, for money had and received, money lent) and oq an account stated ; and each count was for 61. 10s , making in the aggregate tai. 10s. The only plea was a set^ofF of 50. I The plaintiff in his particulars of demand claimed 61. 10s. for money lent. At the trial, before the uuder-sheriff of Middlesex, the defendant had a verdict, upon the prfoof of a set-off for 61. 10s. Bovill had obtained a rule, calling on the defendant to sHew cause why the verdict should not be entered for the plaintiff, or why there should nqt be a new trial. s Miller now shewed cause. The defendant is entitled to retain the verdict which he has obtained. He has proved all that the plaintiff could have proved. [Alderson, B. He has admitted the debt by not having pleaded to it; the [11] proper way would have been to have pleaded never indebted, in addition to the set-otf.] The plaintiff has limited his claim by his particulars of demand, and therefore it is not necessary tQ plead to that which is admitted by the particulars not to be clue; the matter stands precisely as if so much had been struck out of the declaration. There is no difference between the declarations in debt and assumpsit, and the defendant by his plea only aflmita that something is due, and not the whole amount of the sums laid in the declaration. [Platt, B. In debt, you admit the whole amount.] The observations of Mr. Baron Parke, in the judgment of the Court delivered by him in the case of Oousins v. P&ddon (2 C. M. & E. 559), shew that the declarations stand precisely on the same footing. He there says, " Whilst it was considered to be law that an action of debt on simple contract was founded on one entire single...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Byfield v Allen (3 Judgements - Graham-perkins; Waddington; Luckhoo)
...Party. 99 The respondent is and was at all material times the Minister of Education. 100 By a letter dated the 29 th of October, 1962, (Ex 10 (4) the Ministry of Education requested the Kingston School Board (the body empowered by Article 38 of the Code of Regulations under the Education La......
- David and David v Basanta and Basanta
-
Repap British Columbia Inc. v. Electronic Technology Systems Inc. et al., 2002 BCSC 539
...to and attached ABB US's "General Terms and Conditions for Service". L. Torsein Affidavit #1, para. 30, Ex. 6 M. Fitzpatrick Affidavit #1, Ex. 10 47. On August 15, 1994, Skeena provided ABB by telephone with purchase order number "34215365" for the fabrication of the first five rows of blad......