Short against Kalloway

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date05 November 1839
Date05 November 1839
CourtCourt of the Queen's Bench

English Reports Citation: 113 E.R. 322


Short against Kalloway

[28] sbort against kalloway. Tuesday, November 5th, 1839. Plaintiff declared in covenant, recitiug that F. had leased a house to defendant, and defendant had by the lease covenanted to repair; that defendant had assigned to plaintiff, with covenant that defendant had repaired according to the terms of the lease; breach, non-repair, alleging, by way of aggravation, that plaintiff had assigned to C. with a covenant that the covenants in the lease had been performed ; that C. had sued plaintiff for the non-performance of the covenants in the lease, whereby plaintiff had to pay C. 1201. to settle the action, besides the expenses of defending it. Plea, payment of 51. into Court, and no damages ultra. Replication, damages ultra. Verdict for 451. damages, beyond the 51. On motion by defendant for a new trial, on the ground that plaintiff was not liable to C. except for his own acts,, and therefore could not charge defendant with the 1201. or 1191., the Court refused a rule, the verdict being general, and not shewing that the jury had allowed damages in respect of C.'s action, and it being defendant's duty to point out at the trial the limitation contended for. The Court also refused to increase (a) See Bex v. The Sector, Ac,., of Birmingham, 7 A. & E. 254. The rule in the present case was drawn up as follows. " Upon reading," &c., " it is ordered that a writ of mandamus issue, directed to the vestrymen and churchwardens of the parish of St. Pancras, in the county of Middlesex, commanding the said vestrymen forthwith to appoint a day for holding a meeting of the parishioners of the said parish, for the election of vestrymen and auditors of accounts for the said parish for the year ending in the month of May 1840, pursuant to the provisions of the statute," &c. (1 & 2 W. 4, e. 60), " within a reasonable time, and so that notice of such election may be given pursuant to, and in the manner directed by, the said statute, on some Sunday," &c., " and commanding the said churchwardens to cause notice of such election, signed by them the said churchwardens, to be affixed to the principal doors of every church and chapel of the said parish, and at other usual places, in the terms prescribed by, and pursuant to, the said Act of Parliament." The mandamus [28] issued : and in Hilary term, 1840 (January llth), a rule waa obtained, calling on the prosecutors to shew cause why the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Tindall and Another v Bell and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Exchequer
    • 8 February 1843
    ...& W. 601). Here it was at the plaintiffs' risk that they stood out for a less sum than that demanded by the salvors In Short v. Kattmimy (11 Ad. & E. 28), Lord Deriman, C J., says -" No person has a right to inflame his own account against another, by incurring additional expense in the unr......
  • Re John Quin a Bankrupt; ex parte Christopher Moore
    • Ireland
    • Court of Bankruptcy and Insolvency (Ireland)
    • 14 June 1860
    ...C., 9 E. & B. 914. Young v. WinterENR 16 C. B. 401. Lewis v. PeakeENR 7 Taunt. 153. Tindall v. BellENR 11 M. & W. 228. Short v. Kalloway 11 A. & E. 28. Beech v. JonesENR 5 C. B. 696. Pierce v. WilliamsUNK 23 L. J., Ex., 322. Lampleigh v. BrathwaitENRUNK Hob. 105; S. C., 1 Sm. L. C. 126, 127......
  • Weber and Pretorius v Gavronsky Brothers
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...(10 M and W. 249 and 62 Rev. R. 600); Smith v Compton (3 Barn and Ad. 407 and 10 E.R. 146); Short v Kalloway (11 Ad and Ellis 28 and 113 E.R. 322); Tindall v Bell (11 M and W. 228 and 63 Rev. Rep. 584); Blyth v Smith (5 M and G. 405 and 134 E.R. 622); Mors le Blanch and Another v Wilson (8 ......
  • William Forrester Bramley, Appellant, Joseph Chesterton, Respondent
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Common Pleas
    • 29 May 1857
    ...plaintiff was not entitled to recover the amount of the costs incurred by him in that suit. [Willes, J., referred to Short v. Kalloway, 11 Ad. & E. 28, where Lord Denman says that "no person has a right to inflame his. own account against another, by incurring additional .expense in the unr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT