Watters against Smith
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 November 1831 |
| Date | 14 November 1831 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 1373
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Referred to, Ex parte Good, 1876-77, 5 Ch. D. 55; In re Wolmerhausen, 1890, 62 L. T. 545.
waiters against smith. Monday, Nov. 14th, 1831. B. and C. being jointly indebted to A. the latter sued B. alone. He remonstrated upon the hardship of the case, alluded to circumstances which would probably reduce the plaintiffs demand if he gained a verdict, and proposed to put an end to the action by paying part of the debt, and the costs of suit. This was agreed to, and a receipt given for the sum paid, which was stated to be for debt and costs in that action. A. afterwards sued C. Held, that the composition above mentioned did not operate as a discharge of the whole debt, but only to relieve B., and, therefore, it was no defence for C. ' [Referred to, Exparte Good, 1876-77, 5 Ch. D. 55; In re Wolmerhcmsen, 1890, 62 L. T. 545.] Assumpsit for work and labour, care, and attendance. Plea, non assumpsit. At the trial before Lord Tenterden C.J., at the London sittings after Michaelmas term 1830, it was proved that the plaintiff had been appointed to the situation of assistant surgeon and apothecary in a certain institution called the Royal Western Hospital, which was under the management of a committee. The defendant and George Hunter were both members of this committee. The plaintiff had claimed from the defendant, by a letter before the action, 431. 16s. as the whole amount of his demand; in the action, however, his claim was reduced to 281. 16s. It was proved, on the part of the defendant, that the plaintiff had already sued Hunter for the whole of the same demand. On the 1st of May 1830, Hunter's attorney addressed the following letter to the plaintiff's attorney :- "Sir,-With reference to our conversation yesterday, I send you underneath (without prejudice) the [890] terms upon which I propose to compromise this suit. I think it however but fair to premise, by representing to you the peculiar hardship of the case as regards Mr. Hunter. You have, unfortunately, fixed upon the very one of all the committee who knew least of the affairs of the hospital, or of the parties connected with it; who subscribed to it (as he does to many other public charities in the metropolis) solely from motives of charity, and only consented to act on the committee at the particular solicitation of a friend, who was rather more eager in the welfare of the institution than the little personal interest he had in it required. I am not in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barber v Fox
...Stracy v. Bank of England. 4 M. & P. 639, S. C. See further on this question, 1 A. & E. 106, Wilkinson v. Byers. 3 N. & M. 853, S. C. 2 B. & Ad. 889, Walters v. Smith. 3 M. & W. 651, Atlee v. Baekhowse, per Parke B. 10 A. & E. 309,.Haigh v. Brooks. 2 P. & D. 477. 4 P. & D. 288, S. C. 10 A. ......
-
Johnson and Another v Davies and Another
...as a Judge of the High Court, in Deanplan Limited v Mahmoud [1993] Ch 151. After a review of the nineteenth century authorities from Watters v Smith (1831) 2 B & Ad 889 and Nicholson v Revill (1836) 4 A & E 675 to In re E.W.A (a debtor) [1901] KB 642 His Honour Judge Baker QC expressed his......
-
Wilbraham v Snow
...by a particular recital or other part of the same instrument. 4 M. & S. 423, Payler v. Homersham. 2 Brod. & Bing. 38, Solley v. Forbes. [2 B. & Ad. 889, Walters v. Smith. 3 B. & Ad. 175, Simons v. Johnson. 1 Dowl. 400, Upton v. Upton. See further 5 Bing. 460, Britten v. Hughes. 3 M. & P. 77......
- Deanplan Ltd v Mahmoud and Another