Veale v Warner
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 85 E.R. 463
COURT OF KING'S BENCH
See Thorburn v. Barnes, 1867, L. R. 2 C. P. 405; Duke of Buccleuch v. Metropolitan Board of Works, 1870-72, L. R. 5 Ex. 230; 5 H. L. 418.
[323] 56. veale versus warner. Pasch. 21 Car. II. Regis, Rol. 514. [See Thorium v. Barnes, 1867, L. R. 2 C. P. 405; Duke of Bucdeuch v. Metropolitan Board of Works, 1870-72, L. R. 5 Ex. 230; 5 H. L. 418.] London, to wit.-Be it remembered that on Wednesday next after fifteen days of Easter in the said term, before our lord the King at Westminster came Thomas Veale Esquire by Dutton Seaman his attorney, and brought here into the Court of our said lord the King then there his certain bill against William Warner, otherwise called William Warner of Pakenhill in the county of Gloucester gent, in the custody of the marshal, &c. of a plea of debt: and there are pledges of prosecution, to wit, John Doe and Richard Roe; which said bill follows in these words, to wit; London, to wit, Thomas Veale Esquire complains of William Warner, otherwise called William 464 VEALE V. WARNER 1WM*. BATOD. 324. Warner of Pakenhill in the county of Gloucester gentleman, being in the custody of the marshal of the Marsbalsea of our lord the King before the King himself, of a plea that he render to him 20001., of lawful money of England, which he owes to, and unjustly detains from him; for that whereas the said William, on the 16th day of April in the 20th year of the reign of our said Lord Charles the Second now King of England, at London aforesaid, to wit, in the parish of St. Mary-le Bow in the ward of Cheap, by his certain writing obligatory, sealed with the seal of him the said William Warner, and to the Court of our said lord the King now here shewn, the date whereof is the same day and year, acknowledged himself to be held and firmly bound to the said Thomas Veale in the said 20001. to be paid to the said Thomas when he should be thereunto requested. Nevertheless, the said William (although often [324] requested) hath not yet paid the said 20001. to the said Thomas, but to pay the same to him hath hitherto altogether refused, arid yet refuses, to the damage of him the said Thomas of 1001.: and therefore he brings suit, &c. And the said William Warner, by Walter Sloper his attorney, comes and defends the wrong and injury when, &c. and prays oyer of the said writing obligatory, and it is read to him, &c.(l) He also prays oyer of the condition of the said writing, &c. and it is read to him in these words, to wit: "The condition of this obligation is such, that if the above-bounden William Warner and John Doe, their heirs, executors, and administrators, for their parts and behalfs, shall and do in all things well and truly stand to, obey, abide, perform, fulfil, and keep the award, order, arbitrement, final end and determination of John Coggs, gent, and John Foxwell, arbitrators indifferently elected and named, as well on the part and behalf of the above-bounded William Warner, as of the above named Thomas Veale, to arbitrate, award, order, adjudge, and determine of and concerning all and all manner of action and actions, cause and causes of actions, suits, bills, bonds, specialties, judgments, executions, extents, quarrels, controversies, trespasses, damages, and demands whatsoever, at any time heretofore had, made, moved, brought, commenced, sued, prosecuted, done, suffered, committed, or depending by or between the said parties, or any of them, so as the said award be made by the said arbitrators by the thirteenth of May next ensuing the date hereof, and in case the said arbitrators do not end the differences between the said parties, then all things shall be referred to Sir Baynham Throgmorton, Knight and Baronet, as umpire, who is to make his umpirage in writing the twentieth day of May next ensuing, then this obligation to be void and of none effect, or else to remain in full force and virtue." Which being read arid heard, the said William saith, that the said Thomas Veale ought not to have his aforesaid action against him, because he saith that the said John Coggs and John Foxwell, the arbitrators in the said condition named, afterwards, to wit,* on the llth day of May, in the 20th year of the reign of our lord the now King, at London aforesaid, in the parish and ward aforesaid, made their award in writing of and upon the, said premises (2) specified in the (1) See ante, p. 9, Jevens v. llarridge, note (1). * Ante, 170, note (2), Skinner v. Andrews. (2) The words " de premissis," in pleading awards, are used as well for the purpose of applying the general words of the award to the particular thing submitted, All. 52, Rose v. 8park,(a) as on the other hand to connect the particular thing awarded with the general words of the submission. 8 Rep. 98 a. Baspole's case, 2d Resolution. It is held that the generality of the words of an award may also be restrained, 1. By averment, to connect the award with the submission; All. 51, Hose v. Spark; 2. By the legal operation or construction of the words, as a release of all actions extends only to actions before the submission; and 3. By intendment of the Court, as, in the case last put, the Court will intend that there was no cause of action subsequent to the sub mission, unless shewn. Cro. Car. 215, Ward v. Uncorn. 1 Salk. 74, 75, Simon v. Gavil. 1 Burr. 278, Perry v. Nicholson. But it is said, that alleging the award to be made de et super premissis supplies all averments. 1 Ld. Raym. 533, in Doyley v. £urton.(b) (a) [See 2 Cr. M. & R. 381, Thorp v. Cole, per Parke B.] (b) As to the necessity of the award comprehending all things submitted, and no more, see ante, 32, note (a): and as to this and other points respecting awards, see 2 Saund. 61, passim. 1 WM& SAUND. M5. MICH. 21 CAR. II. REGIS 465 condition aforesaid; and by the said award, the said John Coggs and John Foxwell did award that on Wednesday the 13th day of the then instant May the said William Warner, his heirs, executors, and administrators, should satisfy, content, and pay to the said Thomas Veale, his executors or assigns, [325] the full sum of 31691. 16s. arid 3d. of lawful money of England. And they further awarded that he the said William Warner, his executors, or administrators, on the said 13th day of May, should seal, and as his deed deliver to the said Thomas Veale, his heirs, executors, and administrators, a full and general release and discharge of all and all manner of actions, and causes of actions, suits, bills, bonds, specialties, judgments, executions, extents, quarrels, controversies, trespasses, damages, and demands whatsoever, at any time before the date of the bond brought here into Court had, made, moved, commenced, sued, prosecuted, committed, or depending by or between the said parties. And the said William Warner further saith, that he the said William, on the said 13th day of May, in the 20th year aforesaid, at London aforesaid, in the parish and ward aforesaid, paid to the said Thomas Veale the said sum of 31691. 16s. and 3d. according to the form and effect of the said award, and also, then and there did seal, and as his deed deliver to the said Thomas Veale the said full release of all and all manner of actions, and causes of action, suits, bills, bonds, specialties, judgments, executions, extents, quarrels, controversies, trespasses, and demands aforesaid; and this he is ready to verify : wherefore he prays judgment if the said Thomas ought to have or maintain his said action thereof against him &c.(3) And the said Thomas Veale saith, that he by any thing by the said William Warner above in pleading alleged, ought not to be barred from having his said action thereof against the said William, because he saith that the said William Warner did not pay the said sum of 31691. 16s. and 3d. according to the form arid effect of the said within award, in mariner and form as the said William hath above thereof in pleading alleged ; and this he prays may be inquired of by the country, &c. And the said William Warner saith that the said Thomas Veale ought not to be admitted to say that he the said William hath not paid the said sum of 31691. 16s. and 3d., because he saith that he the said Thomas, on the last day of May, in the 30th year aforesaid, by his certain writing acknowledged (c) that he the aaid (3) This plea states a performance by the defendant of the whole of the award on his part. If the plea had not done so, it seems it would have been bad in point of law. As where in debt on bond, conditioned that the defendant and two others should perform an award, the defendant pleads an award that he should pay 20s. to the plaintiff, and each of the others 20s. a-piece, and that he paid the 20s. to the plaintiff, but says nothing as to the sums to be paid by the other two, which he ought to have done, inasmuch as he is answerable for the whole money; the plea is insufficient, and the plaintiff has no necessity to assign a breach. 3 Lev. 24, Gvnne v. Tinker. (c) A receipt is not conclusive evidence against the party giving it; but he may shew that it was given under a misapprehension, or that it was obtained by fraud or imposition. Benson v. Bennett, 1 Camp.-394. in note. [A receipt is an admission only, and though evidence against the person who made it, and those claiming through him, is not conclusive evidence, except as to the person who may have been induced by it to alter his condition. 3 B. & C. 421, Skaife v. Jackson. 5 D. & K. 290, S. C. 3 B. & Ad. 318, Graves v. Key. 9 A. & E. 641, Farrar v. Hutchinsm.] And it has been held that a receipt and release for the consideration money contained in a deed, is not conclusive. 2 T. R. 366, Stratton v. Rastall. But see 2 Taunt. 141, Rowntree v. Jacob, in which it was held that such a receipt and release contained in a deed is conclusive. 1 B. & C. 704, Baker v. Dewey, S. P. [See also 3 M. & W. 279, Hoarding v. Ambler.] However, where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v Taylor
...claimed, the maxim being "quando ahquis aliquid concedit, concedeie videtur efc id sine quo res uti uon potest." In Patnftet v. Ihcro/t (1 Saund. 323) the law is thus [712] kw^ down by Twisden, J., "When the use of a thing is granted, eveiy thing is granted by which the grantee may have and......
-
Fenton v Hampton
...of necessity, if it exists iu law, passes by the grant as much as if it [355] were conveyed by it in express terms. Pomfret v. Bicroft (1 Saund. 323). Under the third head I feel compelled to reject the authority of the American Commentator (Story, ' On the American Constitution,' vol. ii. ......
-
Barry against Rush
...to prevail, the award would be bad by comprising a subject not referred, and then the plaintiff could not have judgment. Fettle v. Warner, 1 Saund. 326. The award of mutual releases to be given by the parties is clearly bad, inasmuch as it exceeds the power given to the arbitrator. This the......