Wentworth and Another against Cock, Administrator of S. Cock
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 April 1839 |
| Date | 26 April 1839 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 113 E.R. 17
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. 2 P. & D. 251; 8 L. J. Q. B. 230. Referred to, Cooper v. Jarman, 1866, L. R. 3 Eq. 101.
[42] wentworth and another against cock, Administrator of S. Cock. Friday, April 26th, 1839. Plaintiffs entered into an agreement with C. to aupply him with a certain quantity of slate immediately ; with a certain other quantity monthly, at a fixed price; and with any further quantity, monthly, that C. might require. C. engaged to receive the slate, not exceeding 200 tons per month ; and the agreement was to be in force till 1st January, 1838. Held, that plaintiffs might sue the administrator of C. for refusing to receive slate sent, in pursuance of the contract, after C.'s death and before the 1st January, 1838. [S. C. 2 P. & D. 251; 8 L. J. Q. B. 230. Referred to, Cooper v. Jarman, 1866, L. E. 3 Eq. 101.] Action of assumpsit commenced 16th June 1837. The declaration stated an agreement in October 1836 between plaintiffs and intestate, that plaintiffs should supply to intestate a certain quantity of slate block monthly, to be delivered in London at a specified price; that they should also aupply to him, immediately, from 100 to 130 tons of blocks at the same price but of different dimensions, and any further quantity, monthly, that the intestate might require, The intestate engaged to receive any quantity of the above-mentioned blocks not exceeding 200 tons per month. The plaintiffs, during their contract with the intestate, were not to supply any other person with blocks of the same description, except for use in the plaintiffs' neighbourhood ; and the contract was to be in force till 1st January 1838 unless cancelled by mutual consent: the terms of payment to be by bill at four montha, and diacount for ready money. The declaration averred mutual promises, and the readiness of plaintiffs to supply the intestate during his life, and the defendant, administrator as aforesaid, since intestate'a death, with blocks of the description and at the price agreed upon ; and that plaintiffs, after the decease of intestate, had sent to London divers tons of such blocks in pursuance of the agreement, and were ready and offered to deliver them to defendant as in the agreement mentioned, and were ready and willing to pre-[43]-pare and deliver the residue; but that defendant did not nor would accept the slate blocks so sent to London and offered to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor and Another against Caldwell and Another
...cites a dictum of Lord Lyndhurst in Marshall v. Broadhiirst (1 Tyr. 348, 349), and a case mentioned by Patteson J. in Wentwvrth v. Cock (10 A. & E. 42, 45-46). [836] In Hall v. Wright (E. B. & E. 746, 749), Crorapton J., in his judgment, puts another case. " Where a contract depends upon pe......
-
Bradbury and Others v Morgan and Another
...that they are not liable in those cases where personal skill or taste is required " That doctrine was acted on in FFentworth v. Cock (10 A. & E. 42), where the plaintiffs had agreed to supply the intestate with a quantity of slate-blocks monthly at a fixed price, and the intestate had engag......
-
Tasker v Shepherd
...the testator only, the executor may enforce it: Marshall v. Bioadhur^t (1C & J 40J) , and he is bound to perform it IVentworth v. Cock (10 A & E. 42). Here the contract waa to do certain business which the act of God has rendered it impossible to perform. In oider to ascertain whether the d......
-
Fratelli Sorrentino v Buerger
...controverted. There is no principle of law which says that the umpire was wrong in his finding of fact. He referred to Wentworth v. Cock, 10 A. & E. 42; Keith v. Burrows, 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 41; 37 L. T. Rep. 291; 2 App. Cas. 646. Atkin, J. - In this case a question is raised as to what is......
-
Defining the Obligation to Perform
...cites a dictum of Lord Lyndhurst in Marshall v. Broadhurst (1 Tyr. 348, 349), and a case mentioned by Patteson J. in Wentworth v. Cock (10 A. & E. 42, 45-46). In Hall v. Wright (E. B. & E. 746, 749), Crompton J., in his judgment, puts another case. "Where a contract depends upon personal sk......