Cash and Another v Trevor

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 19 April 1841
• Date: 19 April 1841
• Court: Exchequer of Pleas (Ireland)

Exch.of Pleas.

CASH and another

and

TREVOR.

Day v. Picton 10 B. & Cr. 120.

Cullen v. O'Brien Ante, p. 255.

Dowlan v. Brett 10 B. & 117.

Berry v. Adamson 6 B. & Cr. 528; S. C. 9 D. & 558.

Amor v. BlodfieldENRENR 2 M. & Sc. 156; S. C. 9 Bing. 91

Bates v. PillingENR 2 Cr. & M. 374: S. C. 4 Tyr. 231; see. also a subsequent decision to the same effect, in Robinson v. Powell, 5 Nees, & Wels. 479.

ENRUNK Vide per Lod Abinger, C. B., and Parke, B., in Edwards v. Jones, 2 M. & W. 416, 417; and per Parke, B., in Wilson v. Broughton, 2 Dowl. P. C. 631.

James v. AskewENR 8 Ad. & El. 351.

Amor v. BlofieldENR 2 M. & Sc. 157.

Small v. GrayENR 2 C. & P. 605.

Wilson v. BroughtonUNK 2 Dowl. P. C. 631.

CASES AT LAW. 433 Counsel in the present case-but that case is clearly distinguishable from H. T. 1841. this ; that was a grant of an annuity or rent-charge, pro consilio impen Erch.VPleas. dendo,-a strictly personal grant, and not assignable when not expressly CLARKE given to the grantee and his assigns, while in this case there was a crea V. tion of an interest legally assignable on the authorities I have referred to. COUGHLAN. On all these grounds we are of opinion that the motion to, set aside the verdict must be refused. RICHARDS, B., expressed his concurrence in the judgment, and stated that Baron Pennefather, who was present at the argument, also conÂÂcurred.* Let the motion to set aside the verdict in this cause be refused with costs, and let judgment be forthwith entered for the plainÂÂtiff without further motion. * Foster, B., was absent. CA-SH and another v. TREVOR. MR. BREVISTER, Q. C., moved that the plaintiffs should be disallowell their,costs in this cause, they having overmarked the writ and held defendÂÂant to bail in a larger amount than recovered by the verdict, and also that the defendant should be allowed his costs, pursuant to the 43 G. 3, c. 46. The plaintiffs were in partnership as woollen-drapers in London, and the defendant was a merchant tailor in Dublin. The action was brought on a promissory note, dated the 13th December 1839, for 82. 18s. 9d. passed by defendant to the plaintiffs in payment of goods purchased from them. This note became due the 16th of April 1840, but previously to its becoming due, the defendant on the 6th of April remitted to the plainÂÂtiffs by letter two promissory notes by way of renewal of the former, one at two months for 41.17s. 7d., and the other at three months for 42. 18s. 9d. On receipt of these notes, the plaintiffs on the 20th April, wrote the following letter in reply :-" Sir, Your bills for 82 are to hand, and we "must decline payment. We will take the one for 41. 17s. 7d. at two "months ; the other we return you, and must request you will send " us the amount in cash per return of post, or we will place it in the " hands of our attorney. eious motives in procuring him to be arrested fez Easter Term. April 19. To entitle a deÂÂfendant to costs under the 43 0.3, c. 46, s. 3, there must have been an actual arrest. Wh at circumÂÂstances held not to amount to reasonable or probable cause for...