Wilson v Marshall

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 03 May 1866
• Date: 03 May 1866
• Court: Court of Exchequer Chamber (Ireland)

Exch. Cham.

Coram LEFROY, C.J.; PIGOT, C. B.; O'BRIEN AND FITZGERALD, JJ.; and HUGHES, FITZGERALD, amd DEASY, BB.

WILSON

and

MARSHALL

Marriott v. Lister 2 Wils. 141.

Hopkins v. LoganENR 5 M. & W. 241.

Crawford v. StirlingENR 4 Esp. 207.

Morley v. Inglis 5 Scott, 314.

Lemere v. ElliottENR 6 H. & N. 656.

Gough v. FindonENR 7 Exch. 48.

French v. FrenchUNK 2 M. & G. 644.

Brooks v. Bockett 9 Q. B. 847.

Harrison v. Turner 10 Q. B. 482.

Eastwood v. KenyonENR 11 Ad. & E. 438.

Lord Falmouth v. ThomasENR 1 Cr. & M. 89.

Mallet v. BatemanELR Law Rep. 1 C. P. 163.

Cocking v. WardENR 1 C. B. 858.

Forth v. StantonENR 1 Wms. Saund. 211, c.

Newhall v. HoltENR 6 M. & W. 662.

Foster v. AllansonENR 2 T. R. 479.

Howard v. Brownhill 23 L. J. N. S. Q. B. 23.

Lee v. MuggeridgeENR 5 Taunt. 36.

Porter v. CooperENR 1 Cr. M. & R. 387.

Laycock v. PicklesENR 4 B. & S. 597.

Cocking v. WardENR 1 C. B. 858.

Rainsford v. EagerUNK 3 Ir. C. L. R. 120.

Oƒ€™Sullivan v. Oƒ€™Callaghan 2 Ir. Jur. 314.

Pinchon v. ChilcottENR 3 C. & P. 236.

Knowles v. MichelENR 13 East, 249.

Matson v. WharamENR 2 T. R. 80.

Jones v. Cooper Cowper, 227.

Peckham v. FariaENR 3 Doug. 13.

Highmore v. Primrose 1 M. & Selw. 64.

Porter v. CooperENR 1 Cr. M. & R. 387.

Prouting v. HammondENR 8 Taunt. 688.

Newhall v. HoltENR 6 M. & W. 662.

Eicke v. Nokes 1 Mood. & Rob. 349.

Cocking v. WardENR 1 C. B. 858.

Knowles v. MitchellENR 13 East, 249.

Pinchon v. ChilcottENR 3 C. & P. 236.

Seago v. DeaneENR 4 Bing. 459; 1 M. & Payne, 227.

Re Laycock v. PicklesENRUNK 4 B. & S. 497; 33 L. J. Q. B. 43.

Peacock v. HarrisENR 10 East, 104.

Crosbie v. WadsworthENR 6 East, 602.

Earl of Falmouth v. ThomasENR 1 Cr. & M. 89.

Petch v. Lyon 9 Q. B. 147

Lubbock v. TribeENR 3 M. & W. 607.

Hopkins v. LoganENR 5 M. & W. 241.

Lewis v. ElliottENR 6 H. & N. 656.

Gough v FindonENR 7 Ex. 48.

Crawford v. StirlingENR 4 Esp. 207.

Randal v. RigbyENR 4 M. & W. 130.

Evans v. JonesENR 5 M. & W. 295.

Re Locock v. PicklesENR 4 B. & S. 507.

Locock v. TribeENR 2 M. & W. 664.

Hopkins v. LoganENR 5 M. & W. 248.

Account stated Guarantee Consideration Statute of Frauds.

WILSON v. MARSHALL (1). Account stated-Guarantee-Consideration-Statute of Frauds. The Defendant promised the Plaintiff, orally, that if certain goods were supÂÂplied to A., a third party, he would see the Plaintiff paid for them. The Plaintiff accordingly supplied the goods, and A. left the country without having paid for them. The Defendant subsequently orally acknowledged his liability to the Plaintiff for the price of the goods. Held, that the Plaintiff was not entitled to recover in an action upon the account stated founded upon the acknowledgment; for, although the admission of a liability to pay a liquidated sum is prima facie evidence of an account stated,. evidence had been properly given to show the nature of the consideration upon which it was founded ; and, it appearing that the sum acknowledged was not the subject of a direct liability from the Defendant to the Plaintiff, a verÂÂdict for the Defendant had been rightly entered. Although an account stated may be founded upon a mere equitable liability, it must be a direct liability from the Defendant to the Plaintiff. The circumstance that the Statute of Frauds bars a party from recovering upon a mere parol contract does not prevent the liability created thereby from forming a good ground for an action founded upon a subsequent statement of accounts between the parties. THIS case came before the Court upon appeal from the decision of the Court of Common Pleas (15 Ir. C. L. R. 466), directing a verdict to be entered for the Plaintiff upon a count upon an acÂÂcount stated. The case was tried before Hayes, J., at the LonÂÂdonderry Spring Assizes, 1864. The writ of Summons and Plaint contained six counts : First, a special count upon a guarantee ; secondly, thirdly, fourthly, and. fifthly, the common counts for goods bargained and sold, goods sold and delivered, money paid, and money lent ; and, sixthly, a count upon an account stated. It was proved at the trial that the Plaintiff, who is a flaxseed merchant, in the month of April, 1861, received a telegram from the Defendant, requesting him to keep a quantity of flaxseed for a person of the name of Brown ; that about a month afterwards the Plaintiff and Brown called for (1) Coram LEFROY, C. J. ; PIGOT, C. B. ; O'BRIEN and FITZGERALD, JJ .; and HUGHES, FITZGERALD, and DEASY, BB. Reported by Valentine J. Coppinger, Esq., Barrister-at-law. COMMON LAW SERIES. 357 the flaxseed ; that it was delivered to Brown at the request of the Exch. Cham. Defendant, who thereupon undertook to see the Plaintiff paid for 1866. it ; that no written guarantee was ever given by the Defendant ; WILSON that, however, after Brown had quitted Ireland without paying MARS...