Rolte against Sharp
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 79 E.R. 668
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
case 8. rolte against sharp. In the Exchequer Chamber. Delivery of goods to a third person at the defendant's request is a good consideration ; and an allegation that he promised to pay tantuin quantum meruit, with an averment quod meniit tantimi, is sufficiently certain, without saying to whom. Latch. 151. 272. Noy, 83. Poph. 181. Ante, 19. 70. Cro. Jac. 263. 570. Post. 160. 273. 573. Cro. Eliz. 143. 149. 848. 1 Sid. 306. Raym. 123. 2 Wils. 309. 1 Burr. 373. 1 Com. Dig. p. 137. 142. 152. Error in the Exchequer Chamber of a judgment given in an assumpsithi the King's Bench, where the plaintiff declared, that he, at the request of A. S. made a gown and petticoat for the said A. S. which lay by him, because they were not paid for ; that the defendant, in consideration the plaintiff would deliver to the said A. S. the said gown and petticoat, assumed and promised to the plaintiff that he would pay as much as the gown and petticoat were reasonably worth ; alledging in fact, that he upon that promise delivered the said gown and petticoat to the said A. S. and that then it was reasonably worth fifteen pounds, and that he had requested the defendant to pay it, and he had not paid it. The defendant pleads nan nssumpsii ; and found against him, and judgment for the plaintiff. And now error assigned, that the declaration is insufficient, because it is alledged he promised to pay, and he doth not shew to whom he should pay it; so it is uncertain to whom the payment should be made. Secondly, there is not any consideration for the defendant to be charged ; for he hath not any benefit by the delivery to A. S. Thirdly, he doth not alledge that he delivered them to A. S. to her own proper use; and then the delivery to her is not material. Fourthly, the promise to pay for them tantum quantum, &c. is insufficient. But all the justices held that the declaration is good : for as to the first, that he promised to the plaintiff to pay, although he doth not say to whom he should pay, it is good enough ; for it shall be intended to the plaintiff, and to pay to another...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul
-
Bragg v Batt
...C. 809. Gale v. ReedENR 8 East, 85. Craig v. Byrne 7 Ir. Law Rep. 500. Lord Arlington v. MerrickeENR 2 Wms. Saund. 410. Rolte v. SharpENR Cro. Car. 77. 480 CASES AT LAW. M. T. 1849. Exch. Chain. ercbtqurr ebambtr. BRAGG v. BATT.* (Error from the Court of Queen's Bench.) Nov. 14, 21. A count......
-
Mills v Wright
...Chief Justice:-If the condition were, "The condition of this obligation is such, that then this bond shall be void," the bond were good. Cro. Car. 77. Solvend' to the obligor, 1 Roll. 409, that the condition is void, and the bond good, and so it shall be interpreted according to the mind of......