Teal v Auty and Dibb
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 June 1820 |
| Date | 13 June 1820 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 129 E.R. 895
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 4 Moore, 542. Discussed, Savage v. Canning, 1867, Ir. R. 1 C. L. 447.
; [99] teal v. auty and dibb. June 13, 1820. [S. C. 4 Moore, 642. Discussed, Savage v. Canning, 1867, Ir. R. 1 C. L. 447.] Defendants were sued for the price of some growing trees, which they had purchased, cut down, and carried away ; a witness proved an admission by one of them that something was due, and a promise to pay. At the time of the bargain written memoranda had been made of the transaction; but these memoranda (one of them art item in a book of accounts,) being neither stamped nor signed with the names of the parties, were not produced in evidence, and tbe Plaintiff was nonsuited : Held, that the nonsuit was proper. Assumpsit for the price of some poles, which Defendants had purchased when growing, and had afterwards cut and carried away. The declaration contained also a count upon an account stated. At the trial before Bayley J. (York Spring assizes, 1820), it appeared, that written memoranda had been made of the transaction at the time of the bargain. These memoranda (one of them an item in a book of accounts) being neither stamped nor signed with the names of the parties, were riot produced in evidence. A witness stated that Auty, after the poles were carried away, admitted something to be due, and promised to pay. The learned Judge directed a nonsuit. Hulloak Serjt., having obtained a rule nisi to set aside this nonsuit, and have a new trial. Vaughan Serjt. shewed cause against the rule. The nonsuit was proper, because this transaction having been accompanied with a writing, no parol evidence was admissible till that writing was produced :-but the writing was inadmissible on two grounds; first, as having no stamp; secondly, as not containing the names of the parties to be charged; which it ought to have done, pursuant to tbe statute of frauds, tha growing trees being an interest in land. Waddington v. Bristow (2 B. & P. 452), Emmtrson v. Sedis (2 Taunt. 38), Crosby v. Wadswmth (6 East, 602). Hullock, in support of his rule. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to impeach any of those cases. If a [100] parol contract, touching an interest in land, he not executed, the party cannot enforce it unless he have a memorandum in writing, signed by ihe person to be charged, as well as by himself: but where the contract is executed, Bucrj evidence of it is no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Savage v Canning
...v. SterikerENR 10 M.& W. 553. Cannan v. Reynolds 5 E. & W. 553. Cutter v. Powell 2 Smith, L. C. 1. Teal v. AutyENR 4 B. Moore, 542; 2 Br. & B. 99. Gray v. HillENR Ryan & Moody, 420. Griffith v. YoungENR 12 East, 513. Mayfield v. WadsleyENR 3 B. & C. 357. Mavor v. PyneENR 3 Bing. 285. Bragg ......