Seaman v Price
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 January 1825 |
| Date | 27 January 1825 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 374
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 10 Moore, 34; 3 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 58: at Nisi Prius, 1 Car. & P. 586; Ry. & M. 195. Referred to, Horsey v. Graham, 1869, 39 L. J. C. P. 62; L. R. 5 C. P. 14.
[437] seaman v. price. Jan. 27, 1825. [S. C. 10 Moore, 34 ; 3 L. J. C. P. (0. S.) 58 : at Nisi Prius, 1 Car. & P. 586 ; Ry. & M. 195. Referred to, Horsey v. Graham, 1869, 39 L. J. C. P. 62; L. R. 5 C. P. 14.] Plaintiff having orally bargained with J. E. for the sale of some houses, sold the bargain to Defendant for 401.; and J. E., at the request of Defendant, conveyed the premises to P., who was not a trustee for Defendant.-A verdict having been found for the Plaintiff in action for the recovery of this 401., the Court refused to enter a nonsuit, which was moved for on the grounds, first, that the oral bargain for=the interest in the houses could never have been enforced, and therefore could not form the consideration of an assumpsit; secondly, that the houses had never been conveyed to the defendant. Assumpsit. First count stated that Plaintiff had bargained and agreed with one J, E. for the purchase of three freehold houses, to be conveyed to the Plaintiff, at the price of 6001., and that in consideration the Plaintiff would sell and give up to the Defendant the said bargain, and would suffer and permit the Defendant to become the purchaser ol the houses from J. E. instead of the Plaintiff, he, the Defendant, undertook, &c., to pay the Plaintiff for the said bargain 401.; that the Plaintiff did sell and give up the bargain to the Defendant, and did suffer and permit the Defendant to become the purchaser of the houses from J. E., and the Defendant did accordingly became such purchaser, and did take the said bargain, and did obtain conveyance to him of the houses on the terms aforesaid, &c. 2BINQ. m DIXON V. HATFIELD 375 Second count stated the consideration that Plaintiff would auffer, permit, and procure the Defendant to become the purchaser, and averred that the Plaintiff did suffer, &c., and that Defendant was accepted, and became the purchaser, &c. The last count stated the consideration, that Plaintiff would relinquish and give up the said bargain to the Defendant, and would give and afford to the Defendant the opportunity of becoming the purchaser; and averred that Plaintiff did relinquish and give up, and did give [438] and afford to the Defendant the opportunity of becoming purchaser. It appeared in evidence at the trial, London sittings after Michaelmas term last, that the Plaintiff had orally agreed with Joel Emmanuel, the owner of the houses, for the purchase of them at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forth and Others v Stanton, Widow
...to his hands; or of forbearance; or if admission of assets is implied and that it was a good consideration for the defendant's promise. 2 Bing. 437, Seaman v. Price. 10 Moore, 34, S. C. 4 B. & C. 525, S. C. in error.] See the observations of Buller J. as to assignments of choxes in action, ......
- Bagnall v White
-
Kelly, Appellant, Webster, Respondent
...v. Stamp, 1 Stark. N. P. C. 12; Soueh v. Strawbridge, ante, vol. ii. p. 808. In Seaman v. Price, 2 Bingh. 437, 10 J. B. Moore, 34, 1 C. & P. 586, the plaintiff, having orally bargained with J. E. for the sale of some houses, sold the bargain to the defendant for 401.; and J. E., at the requ......