Withers v Reynolds
| 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. 1370
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 1 L. J. K. B. 30. Upheld, Jonassohn v. Young, 1863, 4 B. & S. 299. Not applied, Clarke v. Burn, 186, 14 L. T. 440. Approved, Bradford v. Williams, 1872, L. R. 7 Ex. 261. Followed, Ex parte Chalmers, 1872-73, 42 L. J. Bk. 4, 37; L. R. 8 Ch. 289. Discussed, Corcoran v. Proser, 1873, 22 W. R. 223. Approved, Freeth v. Burr, 1874, L. R. 9 C. P. 214. Followed, Bloomer v. Bernstein, 1874, L. R. 9 C. P. 588. Discussed, Mersey Steel and Iron Company v. Naylor, 1882-84, 9 Q. B. D. 658; 9 App. Cas. 442. Referred to, Cornwall v. Henson, (1900) 2 Ch. 303. Applied, Rhymney Railway v. Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway, 1900, 69 L. J. Ch. 813. Referred to, Emery v. Wells, (1906) A. C. 524.
withers against reynolds. Monday, Nov. 14th, 1831. E. agreed to supply W. with straw, to be delivered at W.'s premises, at the rate of three loads in a 'fortnight, during a specified time; and W. agreed "to pay E. 33s. per load for each load of straw so delivered on his premises " during the above period. After the straw had been supplied for some time W. refused to pay for the last load delivered, and insisted on always keeping one payment in arrear: Held, that according to the true effect of the agreement, each load was to be paid for on delivery, and that on W.'s refusal so to pay for them, E. was not bound to send any more. [S. C. 1 L. J. K. B. 30. Upheld, Jowssohm v. Young, 1863, 4 B. & S. 299. Not applied, Clarice v. Burn, 1866,14 L. T. 440. Approved, Bradford v. Williams, 1872, L. E. 7 Ex. 261. Followed,.Ex parte Chalmers, 1872-73, 42 L. J. Bk. 4, 37; L. E. 8 Ch. 289. Discussed, Corcoran v. Proser, 1873, 22 W. E. 223. Approved, Freeth v. Burr, 1874, L. E. 9 C. P. 214. Followed, Bloomer v. Bernstein, 1874, L. E. 9 C. P. 588. Discussed, Mersey Steel and Iron Company v. Naylor, 1882-84, 9 Q. B. D. 658; 9 App. Cas. 442. Referred to, Cornwall v. Henson, [1900] 2 Ch. 303. Applied, Ehymney Bailway v. Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway, 1900, 69 L. J. Ch. 813. Referred to, Emery v. Wells, [1906] A. C. 524.] Assumpsit for not delivering straw to the plaintiff pursuant to agreement. At the trial before Lord Tenderden C.J. at the sittings in Middlesex after last Hilary term, the agreement proved was as follows:- " John Reynolds undertakes and agrees to supply Joseph Withers with wheat straw of good quality sufficient for his use as a stable-keeper, and delivered on his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Decro-Wall International S.A. v Practitioners in Marketing Ltd
...punctually to pay the bills goes to the root of the contract and thereby amounts to a repudiation. 16 Mr. Ross-Munro relied upon Withers v. Reynolds (1831) 2 Barnewall and Adolphus 882, in support of his skilful argument that the failure to pay the bills on time amounted to a repudiation of......
-
Grains Jamaica Ltd v The Peppersource Ltd
...of payment for the main contract the authorities support the appellant Grains. The case which governs this issue is Withers v Reynolds 1831 2 B & Ad. 882 or 109 E.R. 1370. Here is how Lord Blackburn in Mersey Steel & Ivan Co. v. Naylor Benzon & Co. [1884] 9 App. Cases 435, 442 or [1881–5] A......
- Chan Chow Kian; International Trading Company
-
Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Company Ltd v Spar Shipping as
...By contrast and though I do not rest my decision on it, the present case is much closer to the context and reasoning in Withers v Reynolds 109 ER 1370, where in a contract for the supply of straw, one party had sought to convert the agreement to pay on delivery to one for payment in arrears......