Byers and Wallace v Beattie

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 21 November 1867
• Date: 21 November 1867
• Court: Exchequer (Ireland)

Exchequer.

BYERS AND WALLACE

and

BEATTIE

Ashton v. Dakin 7 W. R. 384.

Taylor v. StrayENR 5 C. B. N. S. 175.

Smith v. LindoENR 5 C. B. N. S. 587.

Rosewarne v. BillingENR 15 C. B. N. S. 316.

Chapman v. ShepherdELR L. R. 2 C. P. 228.

Whitehead v. IzodELR L. R. 2 C. P. 230.

Sutton v. Tatham 10 A. & B. 27.

Atherfold v. BeardENR 2 T. R. 611.

Grisewood v. BlaneENR 11 C. B. 526.

Irish v. OsborneUNK 5 Ir. C. L. R. 404; S. C. in Ex. Ch. 3 Ir. Jur. N. S. 153.

Rourke v. ShortENR 5 E. & B. 904.

Fitch v. JonesENR 5 E. & B. 238.

Morgan v. PebrerENR 3 Bing. N. C. 457.

Hay v. Ayling 16 Q. B. 423.

Ashton v. Dakin 7 W. R. 384.

Contract to pay differences between prices at which Shares were bought and sold Wagering Contract.

BYERS AND WALLACE v. BEA TT1E. Contract to pay differences between prices at which Shares were bought and sold-Wagering Contract. The writ of Summons and Plaint stated in substance that, in consideration that the Plaintiffs, as stockbrokers for the Defendant, would buy and sell stock and shares for the Defendant, at and when the Defendant should direct, and on the terms that in case the prices for which the stock and shares should be sold by the Plaintiffs for the Defendant should be greater than the prices for which they should have been bought by the Plaintiffs for the Defendant, the Plaintiffs should pay the Defendant the difference between the prices, less their commission and charges, the Defendant undertook and agreed, in case the price for which the stock and shares should be sold by the Plaintiffs for the Defendant should be less than the price for which they should be bought by the Plaintiffs for the Defendant, that he would pay the Plaintiffs the ilifference between the said prices, together with their commission and charges ; and that, in consideration and in pursuance of such agreement and undertaking, the Plaintiffs bought and sold for the Defendant, at his request, and as and when he directed, certain stock and shares ; and that the stock and shares were sold for prices less than those for which they were bought, but the Defendant had not paid the amount of such difference, nor commission. To this the Defendant pleaded as to the differences between the prices at which the shares were bought and at which they were sold, that the Plaintiffs never made any payment for the Defendant, on account of, or otherwise satisfied the differences, or any part thereof. On demurrer to this defence, Held, that the contract appearing upon the Plaint was a wagering contract within the 8 & 9 Viet. c. 109, s. 18. DEMURRER. The first paragraph of the writ of Summons and Plaint stated that it was agreed between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant that, in consideration that the Plaintiffs, as stockbrokers for the Defendant, would buy and sell for the Defendant such bank, railway, and other stock and shares as the Defendant should require, as and when the Defendant should direct, and on the terms that, in case the prices for which such stock and shares should be sold by the Plaintiffs for the Defendant should be greater than those for which the same should have been bought by the Plaintiffs for the Defendant, the Plaintiffs should pay to the Defendant the difference between the said prices, less the COMMON LAW SERIES. 221 Plaintiffs' commission and charges, he, the Defendant, under- Exchequer. took and agreed that, in case the prices for which the said stock and shares should be sold. by the Plaintiffs for the Defendant BYERS should be less than the prices at which such stock and shares V. should be bought, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiffs the BEATTIE. difference between the said last-mentioned prices, together with the Plaintiffs' commission and charges. And the Plaintiffs averred that, in consideration of such agreement and underÂÂtaking, and in pursuance...