Sloman against Walter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 November 1783 |
| Date | 14 November 1783 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 28 E.R. 1213
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See S. C. with full notes, 2 Wh. & T. L. C. (7th ed.) 257. Followed, Protector Loan Co. v. Grice, 1880, 5 Q. B. D. 595.
sloman against walter. [14 Nov. 1783.] [See S. G. with full notes, 2 Wh. & T. L. C. (7th ed.) 257. Followed, Protector Loan Co. v. ffrice, 1880, 5 Q. B. D. 595.] Where the penalty of a bond is only to secure the enjoyment of a collateral object, equity will grant an injunction against a suit for the recovery, and an issue quantum damnificatus, to try the real damage. Upon shewing cause'why an injunction should not be dissolved (it was an original application for an injunction by Mr. Madocks. R. L.); the case appeared to be thus : That the plaintiff and defendant were partners in the Chapter coffee-house, and upon entering into the partnership it had been agreed that the business should be conducted entirely by the plaintiff, but that the defendant should have the use of a particular room in the house whenever he thought proper. And in order to enforce this agreement, a bond was entered into by the plaintiff to the defendant in the penalty of £500. After some time, the defendant demanded the use of the room, and, being refused, brought an action for the penalty of the bond.(l) Plaintiff filed this bill, praying an issue to try quantum damnificatus, and an injunction in the mean while.-He obtained an injunction till answer or further order : and, the answer being now come in, the only question, in respect to continuing the injunction till the hearing, was, whether the penalty of the bond was merely intended as a security for the enjoyment of the room, or in the nature of assessed damages between the parties. Mr. Scott and Mr. Harvey (for the defendant) contended the injunction ought to be dissolved, and the defendant permitted to have his remedy upon the bond. It was impossible a jury, upon an issue of quantum damnificatus, could assess any other damages than those already assessed by the parties themselves.-They referred to the case in the House of Lords, where £5 per acre penalty for plowing up meadow land [419] was reserved in a lease, and the Court of Chancery having relieved against the penalty, and directed an issue to try the actual damage, the decree was reversed (Bolfe v. Peterson, 6 Brown's Parlt. Cases, 470), and also cited 2 Atk. 190, Roy v. the Duke of Beaufort, and Ch. Ca. 183. 1214 verney (earl) v. macnamara i bed. c. c. 419. Lord...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campbell Discount Company Ltd v Bridge
...has been paid." 23The result is that the Appellant is entitled to relief in accordance with the principles laid down by Lord Thurlow in Sloman v. Walter, 1 Bro. C.C. 24In the course of the argument your Lordships' attention was directed to section 4 (1) of the Hire-Purchase Act, 1938, whic......
-
Campbell Discount Company Ltd v Bridge
...has been paid." 23The result is that the Appellant is entitled to relief in accordance with the principles laid down by Lord Thurlow in Sloman v. Walter, 1 Bro. C.C. 24In the course of the argument your Lordships' attention was directed to section 4 (1) of the Hire-Purchase Act, 1938, whic......
-
Jobson v Johnson
...details are not material for the purpose of this appeal. It suffices to-say that an example of the latter type of case is to be found in Sloman v. Walter (1783) 1 Bro. C.C. 418. The party seeking payment of the penalty prevented by injunction from recovering, by execution or otherwise, more......
-
Lucio Robert Paciocco and Another v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd
...Rep T Finch 312 [ 23 ER 171]. 56 See Rossiter, Penalties and Forfeiture, (1992) at 13, citing Sloman v Walter (1783) 1 Bro CC 418 at 419 [ 28 ER 1213 at 1214]. 57 Simpson, ‘The Penal Bond with Conditional Defeasance’, (1966) 82 Law Quarterly Review 392 at 418. See also Francis, Maxims of Eq......