Stewart v Cauty
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 April 1841 |
| Date | 17 April 1841 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 151 E.R. 992
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 10 L. J. Ex 348; 5 Jur. 411.
stewart v. cauty. Exch. of Pleas. April 17, 1841.-In an action for the non-acceptance of railway shares, which by the contract (made at Liverpool through brokers) were to be delivered in a reasonable time, a written rule of the Liverpool Stock Exchange, stated to Vie acted upon by all the Liverpool brokers-"that the seller of shares was in all cases entitled to seven days to complete his contract by delivery, the time to be computed from the day on which he was acquainted with the name of his transferee "-was held admissible on an issue whether the plaintiff within a reasonable time was ready and willing and ottered to transfer the shares; although it was not proved that either of the parties, or their brokers, was a member of the Liverpool Stock Exchange.-In such action, the proper measure of damages is the difference of the prices of the shares according to the contract, and on the day when they were resold by the vendor, such resale being within a reasonable time. [S. C. 10 L. J. Ex. 348; 5 Jur. 4LI.] This was an action of assumpsit, for not accepting certain half-shares in the G-reat Western Railway, agreed to be sold by the plaintiff to the defendant. The declaration stated, that the shares were by the contract to be delivered in a reasonable time, and averred that within such reasonable time the plaintiff was ready and willing and offered to transfer the shares to the defendant, but that the defendant discharged him from transferring the same ; and alleged a breach in non-acceptance of the shares. The defendant pleaded, first, non assumpsit; secondly, that the plaintiff was not within a reasonable time ready and willing, nor did he offer to transfer the said shares to the defendant, modo et forma; thirdly, a traverse of the defendant's having discharged the plaintiff from transferring the shares; and fourthly, that the defendant was ready and willing to accept and pay for the shares within a reasonable time, but that the plaintiff refused to transfer the same, whereupon the defendant rescinded the contract. The plaintiff joined issue on the three first pleas, and replied to the fourth by a traverse of his alleged refusal to transfer the shares ; on which replication also issue was joined. [161] At the trial before Rolfe, B., at the last Liverpool Assizes, it appeared that the contract in question was made at Liverpool, between the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Same v Bateman
...Bartlett v. Pentland. 1 B. & Ad. 605, Scott v. Irving. 4 M. & W. 211, Stewart v. Aberdein. See 11 M. & W. 116, Mackintosh v. Marshall. 8 M. & W. 160, Stewart v. Cauty. Again, though a usage may be admissible to explain what is ambiguous in the policy, it is never admissible to contradict wh......
-
Ex parte Henry Bolckow and John Vaughan. Donald MacLean, a Bankrupt
...delivered the section. They referred to Gainsford v. Carroll (2 B. & C. 624), Phillpotts v. Evans (5 M. & W.'475), Stewart v. Canty (8 M. & W. 160), Tempest v. Kilner (3 C. B. 249), Dunlop v. ffiggins (1 H. L. Gas. 381), and Robinson v. Harman (18 L. J. Exch. 202). [662] Mr. Bacon, for the ......
-
Shaw v Holland
...not be considered an unreasonable time for the purchaser to take to make up his mind as to the repurchase; and cited Stmuart v. Oauty (8 M. & W. 160), where it was held, that, in an action for the non-acceptance of railway shares, the proper measure of damages was the difference between the......