Sorsble and Others v Park
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 November 1843 |
| Date | 15 November 1843 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 152 E.R. 1146
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 13 L. J. Ex. 9. Referred to, Palmer V. Mallet, 1887, 36 Ch. D. 421.
sorsbie and others v. park. Exch. of Pleas. Nov. 15, 1843.-Special case. The declaration, in covenant, stated that the defendant and others having formed a scheme for erecting, by subscription, a corn-market at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, l2M,&W.Ht. SORSBTE V. PARK 1147 executed a deed-poll, whereby they did, for themselves severally and respectively, covenant, promise, and agree to and with each other to advance and pay the several sums of money subscribed and placed opposite their respective names, for erecting the corn-market, subject to such alterations as should be thought ; convenient by the general committee appointed by the subscribers, within four years, and also to make such payments in respect of the said shares as should be deemed expedient by such committee ; and the said subscribers and the defendant did, for themselves severally and respectively, and for their respective executors and administrators, severally promise and agree with the plaintiffs, iu case of the default of such committee to require such payments within four years, then to make such payments unto such persons and in such proportions as should lie required by the plaintiffs. It then averred that the plaintiffs did not subscribe any sum of money, but became parties to the deed, in order that, in case of the default of the committee to require such payments within four years, they might receive or appoint such payments from the subscribers, on behalf of the mayor, &c.; that the defendant subscribed to the deed for the sum of ,500 ; that the committee made default in requiring the shareholders and the defendant to make any payment within four years : wherefore the plaintiffs, after the said four years, required the defendant to pay 150 in respect of his shares. Breach, the nonpayment thereof. The Court were to be at liberty to refer to the deed-poll; and, on reference to it, it appeared that the covenant was by the subscribers to and with each other, and to and with the plaintiffs :-Held, that this was primsi, facie a joint covenant with the subscribers and the plaintiffs, and not a several covenant with the plaintiffs alone; secondly, that it did not appear from the deed that the plaintiffs had a separate interest, and that the subscribers and the plaintiffs ought to have sued jointly.-Where the words of a covenant are expressly joint, it will be so construed, although the interest may be several, and vice versft,; but where the words are ambiguous in this respect, they may be construed to be joint or several, according to the interest. [S. G. 13 L. J. Ex. 9. Referred to, falm&r v. Mallet, 1887, 3( Ch. D. 421.] This was an action of covenant, tried at the Northumberland Summer Assizes, 1842, when a verdict was [147] found for the plaintiffs on all the issues, subject to the opinion of the Court on the following special case :- The declaration stated, that whereas, after the passing of a local act of Parliament, 26 Geo. 3, intituled " An Act for widening, &c. the streets and other public places, and for opening new streets, markets, and passages within the town of Newcastle upon-Tyne," &c., and before the making of the articles of agreement and deed-poll thereinafter mentioned, to wit, on &c., a certain scheme was set on foot and entertained by divers persons, and, amongst others, by T. Featherston, T. Doubleday, J. C. Anderson, J. ,R. Featherston, and T. Anderson, the defendant, the then mayor, aldermen, and common council of the town of Newcastle-upon-Tyne for the time being, and the mayor and burgesses of the same town, viz. a scheme for erecting and completing, by subscription, in the same town, a covered corn-market or corn-exchange, with avenues anjl approaches thereto, and for the purchase, by the said mayor, &c., of the same market when erected and completed: and whereas, by certain articles of agreement made and entered into beween the said T. F., T. D.,'j. C. A., J. K. F., and T. A., being five of the subscribers, of the h'rst part; the mayor, aldermen, and common council, of the second part; and the mayor and burgesses of the said town, of the third part; it was witnessed, that they the parties thereto of the first part, at the request of the said mayor, &c., for themselves and each and every of them, their and each and every of their heirs, executors, and administrators, jointly and severally did, and each of them did, in consideration of the sum of ,5000, to be paid as thereinafter mentioned, covenant, promise, declare, and agree to and with the said mayor, aldermen, and common council, and their successors, and to and with the said mayor and burgesses and their successors, in manner following, that is to say, that they the said persons, parties [148] thereto of the first part, should and would, within the space of four years from the date thereof, make, erect, &c. a covered corn-market or corn-exchange, with avenues and approaches thereto, and also should and would, as soon as conveniently might be after the making and erecting of the said corn-market or corn-exchange, sell and convey the same, and the freehold and inheritance thereof. 1148 SORSBIE V. PARK 12M.&W.149. unto and to the use of the said mayor and burgesses, and their successors, at or for the- price or sum of 5000. [Then followed a covenant, by the mayor, aldermen, and common council, and the mayor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coryton and Another v Lithebye
...action only can be main tained. 8 C. & P. 708, Harrison v. Mevinyton.] (e) [See ante, Vol. I. p. 154, notes to Eccleston v. Clipsham. 12 M. & W. 146, Sorsbia v. Park. But if the cause of action be joint, the action should be joint, though the interest be several. Accordingly where in covena......
-
White v Tyndall
...Before LORD ASHBOURNE, C., and FITZ GIBBON and BARRY, L. J J. TYNDALL and WHITE Sorsbie v. ParkENR 12 M. & W. 146, 156. Primrose v. BromleyENR 1 Atk. 89. Levy v. SaleUNK 37 L. T. (N. S.) 709. Hellier v. Gasbard Siderfin, 266. The King v. The Inhabitants of Great WakeringENR 5 B. & Ad. 971. ......
-
Eccleston and Wife, Executors of Castle, v Clipsham
...to the covenant a different effect. The qualification of the rule thus stated by Mr. Preston was adopted by Lord Abinger and Parke B. in 12 M. & W. 146, 156, 158, Sorsbie v. Park; and the latter learned Judge stated the true rule to be, that " a covenant will be construed to be joint or sev......
- Federation Insurance Ltd v Wasson