Todd and Bosanquet against Stewart, Emly and Hastings
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1847 |
| Date | 01 January 1847 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 115 E.R. 1467
QUEEN'S BENCH
Reversed, 9 Q. B. 767. Referred to, Stevens v. Tillett, 1870, L. r. 6 C. P. 175.
todd and bosanquet against stewart, emly and hastings. 1846. Debt for 4001., viz. 2001. for goods sold and delivered, and 2001. on an account stated. Pleas, as to the residue of the cause of action (after pleas as to 431. 6s. 9d. parcel, &c.) : first, that plaintiff impleaded defendant in respect, among other things, of the said residue, in assumpsit, to plaintiffs damage of 4001., and such proceedings were had that plaintiff recovered against defendant 3141. 8s., as well for his damages in the said action, and in respect whereof plaintiff had impleaded defendant, as for his costs and charges, whereof defendant waa convicted, as by the record, &c.; and which judgment has not been reversed. Secondly, as before, adding that defendant, before plaintiff had declared in the present action, paid and satisfied plaintiff the amount recovered, and plaintiff acknowledged himself to be satisfied the damages, costs and charges so recovered ; as by the record, &c. Replication, to each plea, that the said residue was not, nor was any part thereof, the causes of action in respect of which the judgment was recovered. Verdict on these issues for defendant. Judgment, by the Court of Q. B., for the plaintiff, non obatante veredicto. Held, by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, reversing the judgment in Q. B.: that the pleas were good after verdict, and defendant entitled to judgment. That, assuming the pleaa to mean that as to part of the claim in the first action plaintiff recovered, and, as to the residue of such claim it was found no more was due, the objection that this should have been pleaded by way of estoppel was formal only, and could not be made after verdict. But assuming the meaning to be (and semble this was so) that plaintiff, having once had a judgment, could not have judgment again for the same debt, the pleas were substantially good. And that, after the finding of the jury, the plaintiff could not contend that the part now claimed of the debt might have become due since the recovery in the first action. Semble that, on special demurrer, the pleas would have been bad for not averring that the recovery, as well as the impleading, was in respect of the residue. [Reversed, 9 Q. B. 767. Referred to, Stevens v. Tillett, 1870, L. R. 6 C. P. 175.] Debt. The declaration demanded 4001., and alleged that the defendants were indebted to the plaintiffs in 2001. for goods sold and delivered, and 2001. on an account stated, which were unpaid, to plaintiffs' damages of 4001. 1468 todd v. stewart sq. b. 7o. Pleas, by Eraly and Hastings. 1. As to 431. 6s. 9d., parcel of the moneys in the declaration mentioned, that, after the accruing of the causes of action, and before action brought, viz. on, &c., [760] defendants and Stewart caused to be paid and satisfied to plaintiffs a certain amount, &c., viz. 431. 6s. 9d., in full satisfaction, &c. in respect of that sum, parcel, &c.; and plaintiffs then accepted, &c. Verification. Replication to plea 1. That defendants and Stewart did not, nor did any or either, &c., cause to be paid, &c. in satisfaction, &c. in manner, &c. Conclusion to the country. Issue thereon. Plea 2. As to the said 431. 6s. 9d., parcel, &c., delivery by defendant Stewart and other persons named, to plaintiffs (after the accruing, &c. and before action brought), of a cheque drawn by Stewart and the last mentioned parties...
To continue reading
Request your trial