Skyring Administratrix of G. Skyring, against Greenwood and Cox
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1825 |
| Date | 1825 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 107 E.R. 1064
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. c. 6 D. & R. 401; at Nisi Prius, 1 Car. & P. 517. Referred to, Langley v. Langley, 1839, 2 Ir. Eq. R. 321; De Cordova v. De Cordova, 1879, 4 App. Cas. 700; Daniell v. Sinclair, 1881, 6 App. Cas. 190; Wilson v. Burne, 1888, 24 L. R. Ir. 30 Distinguished, R. v. Blenkinsop, [1892] 1 Q. B. 46. Followed, Deutsche Bank v. Beriro, 1895, 1 Com. Cas. 123, 255.
1064 SKYRING V. GREENWOOD 4B.&C.282.- skyring, Administratrix of G. Sky ring, against greenwood AND Cox. Monday, June 6th, 1825. The paymaster of a military corps had given credit in account to an officer in that corps from the 1st January 1817 to.the 5th, November 1820, for certain increased pay, erroneously supposed to be granted by a general order of the 27th August 1806 to an officer of his situation, and a statement of that account was delivered to the officer in 1821. In December 1816, the paymasters were informed by the Board of Ordnance that the increased pay granted by the order of 1806 would not be allowed to persons in the situation of the officer in question. The paymasters did not communicate this information to the officer until 1821, and subsequently to that time they continued to receive his pay: Held, in an action brought by his personal representative to recover such pay, it was not competent to the paymaster to retain any of such sums of money on account of the sums which they had credited him for by way of increased pay, and which they had allowed him to consider his own for so long a period of time. [S. C. 6 D. & E. 401; at Nisi Prius, 1 Car. & P. 517. Referred to, Lamgley v. Langley, 1839, 2 Ir. Eq. E. 321; De Cordova v. De, Cordova, 1879, 4 App. Gas. 700; Daniell v. Sinclair, 1881, 6 App. Cas. 190; Wilson v. Emm, 1888, 24 L. E. Ir. 30. Distinguished, E. v. Bknldnsop, [1892] 1 Q. B. 46. Followed, Deutsdie Bank v. Beriro, 1895, 1 Com. Cas. 123, 255.] Assumpsit for money had and received by the defendants to the use of G. Skyring in his life-time, and to the use of the plaintiff, as administratrix since his death. Plea, general issue. At the trial before Abbott C.J., at the Middlesex sittings after last Michaelmas term, the following appeared to be the facts of the case : The plaintiff was administratrix of the late G. Skyring, who was major in the Eoyal Artillery. The defendants were paymasters of the Eoyal Artillery, and held their office by commission, as other officers in the corps hold theirs. The pay of the whole Army was fixed by regulations established in 1806. These regulations were made known to the different branches of the Army by general orders issued from the respective proper departments, and the general order for the ordnance or artillery issued from the head quarters at Woolwich, in August 1806, in these words: " His Majesty having been most graciously pleased to express his [282] approval of the classes of officers, non-commissioned officers, and gunners of the Eoyal Eegiment of Artillery partaking of the advantages in point of pay granted to the infantry, as far as the several ranks of one service correspond with those of the other, to commence from the 1st of July 1.806 ; the following rate of increase to the pay is announced in orders, and attaches to the invalid battalions, marching battalions, horse brigade, foreign and the King's German Artillery, viz. (amongst other ranks) captain and second captain Is. Id. per diem, two shillings per diem more to captains having the brevet rank of major or any superior rank, adjutants and quarter-masters who hold two commissions are not entitled to the increase of pay. First gunners are entitled to the same increase of pay as gunners. The above increase of pay and allowances to officers are granted under the same restrictions as the allowance of one shilling a day, added to the pay of subalterns in 1797, and, consequently, the difference between the former and increased rates is not in any case to be received by an officer holding more than one military commission or appointment, nor to give claim to any higher half pay on reduction." The regulations of 1797 were likewise published by a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Westminster Bank Plc v Somer International (UK) Ltd
...the relevance of estoppel as a defence to claims to restitution. Examples of the more important of such authorities are Skyring –vGreenwood 4 B&C 281; Holt –vMarkham [1923] I KB 504 and Lloyds Bank Limited –vBrooks (1950) 6 Legal Decisions Affecting Bankers 161." 14 Later, at 621E-G he said......
-
Australian Financial Services and Leasing Pty Ltd v Hills Industries Ltd
...82 CLR 463 at 474; [1951] HCA 13, citing James v Thomas H Kent & Co Ltd [1951] 1 KB 551. 280 Skyring v Greenwood (1825) 4 B & C 281 [ 107 ER 1064]; R v Blenkinsop [1892] 1 QB 43 at 46; Deutsche Bank (London Agency) v Beriro and Co (1895) 1 Comm Cas 123; affd (1895) 1 Comm Cas 255. 281 [1......
-
Swan v The North British Australasian Company Ltd
...of which the principal drew the money and spent it, the agent was not allowed to say that the credit was unfounded Ski/ring v. Gheemcood (4 B & C. 281). Shaw v. Ptcton (id 715), in the same book, was a very similar case. [633] These cases were not decided explicitly on the ground of estoppe......
-
William Ritter v Butterfield Bank (Cayman) Ltd
...to the precise amount of the detriment which the representee proves he has suffered in reliance on the representation: Skyring v Greenwood 4B.&C. 281, citing a passage from the judgment of Abbott CJ at 289; Holt v Markham [1923] 1 KB 504; and Lloyds Bank Limited v Brooks, 6 Legal Decisions......
-
Table of cases
...122 ................................................................................... 200, 221 Skyring v. Greenwood and Cox (1825), 4 B. & C. 281, 107 E.R. 1064 ................................................................................................317 Slingsby v. District Bank Lt......