Spicer against Cooper
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 April 1841 |
| Date | 21 April 1841 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 113 E.R. 1195
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. 1 G. 7 D. 52; 10 L. J. Q. B. 241; 5 Jur. 1036. Referred to, Sarl v. Bourdillon, 1856, 1. C. B. N. S. 106. Applied, Newwell v. Radford, 1867, L. R. 3C. P. 54
[424] spicer against coopbe. Wednesday, April 21st, 1841. Declaration stated that defendant had sold plaintiff eighteen pockets of Kent hops at the price of 51. per cwt., but failed to deliver according to promise. Issue being joined on uon assumpsit, it appeared that the contract was in writing, as follows : sold 18 pockets Kent hops, at 100s,: and that a pocket contained more than a cwt. Held, that evidence might be given to shew that, by usage of the hop trade, a contract so worded was understood to mean 51. per cwt. [S. C. 1 G. & D. 52 ; 10 L. J. Q. B. 241; 5 Jur. 1036. Referred to, Sari v. Bourdillm, 1856, 1. C, B. N. 8. 196. Applied, Newell v. Radfard, 1867, L. R. 3 C. P. 54.] Assumpsit. The declaration stated that heretofore, to wit on, &c., the plaintiff, at the request of the defendant, bargained with defendant to buy of him, and defendant sold to plaintiff, divers goods, to wit eighteen pockets of Kent hops, at the price of 51. for each cwt., to be delivered by defendant to plaintiff in a reasonable time, and paid for by plaintiff to defendant at the expiration of three months' credit. Averment of mutual promises, that a reasonable time had elapsed, and that plaintiff was always ready to receive the hops, and pay, &c.; and of request by plaintiff to defendant to deliver. Breach, non-delivery of the hops by defendant, and that defendant wrongfully discharged plaintiff from performing his, plaintiff's, promise. Pleas. 1. Norj assumpsit. Issue thereon. 2. That plaintiff was not ready to accept, &c., or pay, &c., nor did defendant discharge, &c. Issue thereon. On the trial before Tindal C.J., at the last Cambridgeshire Assizes, the following written contract was proved by the plaintiff to have been signed by the defendant. "Sold Mr. Waite Spicer of S. Walden. 18 Pos. Kent hops as under, July 23d, 1840. 10 Pos. Burton East Kent 1839, \ s. 8 Pos. Springet Goudhurst Kent, 1839,/at 100. Delivered. Qn, Allowances & 3 Months' credit. john cooper, Boxworth." It appeared that a pocket of hops contained more [425] than one cwt., and that defendant had proposed to deliver the hops at 100s. for such pocket; but the plaintiff (c) Stat. 11 G. 2, c. 19, s. 15. Stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 22, s. 2. See note [z] to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen, on the Prosecution of Mappin and another, Respondents, Youle, Appellant
... ... On a second information laid against him for unlawfully absenting himself fiom the service, it was proved to the satisfaction of the ... ...
- Buckley v Gross