Slike strani


Adjourned Sittings in London, after Trinity

Term, 1831.


[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

June 30th.

HILLARY V. MORRIS. A.wasentitled to ASSUMPSIT to recover commission as an agent on the commission for introducing to a sale of the defendant's business of a wine merchant. tradesman a purchaser for his

It appeared that, in consequence of a letter written by business, which the plaintiff to the defendant, informing him that he should was to be paid on the completion be able to procure a friend of his to become the purchaser After he had in. of the business, a letter was written in answer by the detroduced the purchaser, but

fendant's authority, containing the particulars of the busibefore the matter ness, the quantities of stock, the value of the trade, &c. was settled, he became bank- This letter was written for the purpose of being shewn to rupt, and his assignees brought the plaintiff's friend, but contained an inclosure marked an action for the private, which was in these words:—“ If the sale is comwhich they af- pleted, I shall be happy to give you a liberal sum upon the terwards discontinued, and premium.” The plaintiff became a bankrupt after he had wrote to him,

introduced the purchaser, but before the bargain was saying that they disclaimed all

finally concluded; and his assignees brought an action for right to the money. A. up- the commission. After a time, however, they discontinued an action in his the action, paid the costs to the defendant, and wrote to own name:

the plaintiff, saying that they disclaimed all right to the Held, that he was not entitled money. The plaintiff had not obtained his certificate. to recover.

Sir J. Scarlett and Steer, for the defendant, contended that the plaintiff's bankruptcy was an answer to the action, as, after the transfer of his rights to his assignees, he could not have any title to sue.

Campbell and R. V. Richards, for the plaintiff, replied that the disclaimer of the assignees left the plaintiff at liberty to sue in his own right; and that, as the whole of the



work had not been done at the time of the action by the assignees, the bankrupt might at least maintain assumpsit for his work and labour for the part which occurred subsequent to the bankruptcy, although he had not obtained his certificate.



Lord Tenterden, C.J.-I am clearly of opinion that the assignees had no right to transfer the claim in question to the bankrupt or to any body else. The debt was part of the bankrupt's estate, which they were bound to get in for the benefit of the creditors. The bankrupt could only recover for introducing the purchaser, he having nothing to do with the valuation; and, although he could not recover any thing till the matter was complete, yet, when it was complete, the cause of action would refer back to the time when the work was done, and that was before the bankruptcy. The assignees, therefore, were the parties entitled to sue, and they have renounced their right. I am of opinion that the plaintiff must be called.


Campbell and R. V. Richards, for the plaintiff.
Sir J. Scarlett and Steer, for the defendant.

[Attornies-- W. B. Ogden, and Reynolds. ]



(Who sat for the Lord Chief Justice.)

Practice as to certificates for

July 1st.

BARFORD v. Nelson. CASE for an injury occasioned by the negligent drivexecution, under ing of a coach, called the Leeds Courier, of which the dethe statute 1 W. fendant was proprietor, to a cart belonging to the plain. .


The case was one of contradictory evidence, and the Jury, after retiring for a considerable time, found a verdict for the plaintiff.

Curwood, upon this applied to PatteSON, J., for a certificate, to entitle the plaintiff to immediate execution.

F. Pollock, for the defendant, said that Lord Tenterden had laid down a rule, that, if there was a reasonable ground of defence, the case should take the ordinary course of the law; and that he understood that Lord Lyndhurst had, in the Court of Exchequer, laid down a similar rule; and he submitted that, according to those rules, the present case, about which the Jury had so long deliberated, was not one in which the certificate should be given.

Patteson, J.-As I am informed that Lord Tenterden has laid down a particular rule, I should be desirous to act, and I will act here, upon that rule. I think it is for the Judge at the time to decide the matter, as the words of the act are—“ that, in his opinion, execution ought to issue," &c. And in this case I should say, that it is one in which there ought to be instant execution, as it was clearly a question for the Jury, and there can be no possibility of disturbing the verdict hereafter. I think that the plaintiff ought to have the fruits of his verdict at once; but I will communicate with Lord Tenterden on the subject.




Campbell and Curwood, for the plaintiff.
F. Pollock and Holt, for the defendant.

[Attornies-C. E. Reynolds, and Pritchard.]

[ocr errors]

We are informed by Mr. Bellamy that no certificate was granted.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

In the case of Wright v. Guiver, tute 24 Geo. 2, c. 40, being for which was also an action for ne- spirits; Lord Tenterden refused to gligent driving, tried before Lord certify, saying, that he did not Lyndhurst, in the Exchequer, on think it a case for execution bethe 20th of June, Bompas, Serjt., fore the ordinary time. for the plaintiff, asked for execu- In the case of Hambidge v. Craw. tion at any time his Lordship ley, (C. P., June 29, 1831), which pleased in the course of the vaca- was an action for criminal contion. Andrews, Serjt., for the de- versation, the plaintiff, to prefendant, submitted that the act of vent a verdict passing against him Parliament was not intended to in consequence of the prevaricaapply to cases of this description. tion of one of his witnesses, conLord Lyndhurst, C. B., refused to sented to be nonsuited; and Tingrant the application, being of dal, C. J., on the application of opinion that it was not a case in Wilde, Serjt., after hearing Payne, which there should be any depar- for the plaintiff, in the absence of ture from the usual course. Storks, Serjt., and after taking time

In the case of Crookshank v. to consider, directed execution to Rose, post, p. 19, which was an issue at the expiration of a month. action on a bill and a note, given The following cases from the for a public house score, to which Oxford Circuit, being on this subthe defence was, that part of the ject, we have subjoined them demand was illegal under the sta- here


WORCESTER ASSIZES, 1831.-Coram Park,J.

July 20th.

WARD v. CROCKET. DEBT for the price of certain windows sold by the plaintiff to the defendant.

There was a verdict for the plaintiff.

Godson applied for a certificate to entitle the plaintiff to immediate execution.

Mr. Justice Park.--I shall not allow immediate execution to issue. The action is in debt, and the defendant is obliged to plead, and come to trial, or the plaintiff might sign final judgment without any writ of inquiry, or proof of the amount of his debt. Lord Tenterden does not grant any certificate if the action is in debt.

Certificate refused.

[blocks in formation]

July 25th.

Bell v. SMITH.
ASSUMPSIT on promissory notes. Plea-General issue.

There was a verdict for the plaintiff.

Russell, Serjt., applied for a certificate to entitle the plaintiff to immediate execution.

Greaves, for the defendant.--I am in a condition to prove that the writ in this case was issued before the statute of 1 W. 4, c. 7, passed; and I submit that that statute only applies to actions commenced after its passing. The word “ brought” of itself is equivocal; but, coupled with the words“ may be,” its operation is clearly future. In this act of

« PrejšnjaNaprej »