The Express.
London, England, 1846-12-17 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

-
Non Pars.—Before Sit F. Pollock, C. 8., and a London Common Jury.
VOLLANS V. FLETCRER.—ALLOTMENT LEITERS SPECI-
7TING CONDITIONS, TO RE PERFORMED BY ALLOTTENS, ,
MUST ER STAMPED AS AGREEMENTS.—This action, which
resembled the now celebrated case of " Walstabh v. Spottia-
sroode,” recently the subject of a forte al decision of the
Court of Exchequer, was brought by the plaintiff, an
attorney at Hull, against the defendant, as one of the
managing committee of the Birmingham, Westbromwich,
Wednosbury, end Walsall Junction Railway Company, to
recover back twenty guineas, the amount of deposits pad by
him upon ten shares in that project. It appeared that the
plaintiff, in reply to an application for shares, received a
letter from Mr. Itettle, the secretary of the company, on the
29th of Omotvr, 1845, informing him that ten shares had
been allotted to him by directions of the managing Cam-
mittee. Amongst other conditions the letter stated that the
deposits of 21. 2s. per share should be paid into the Hull
Bank within a specified period. The plaintiff complied with
that requisition, but got no scrip in exchange for the banker's
receipt. In December, 1845, the project was abandoned,
andhe then applied for the deposits he had paid, but it ap-
peared he had not previously called upon the committee to
give him scrip certificates in exchaege for the banker's
receipt, although the allotment letter stated he would
be entitled to them on productiou of the receipt.
The committee refused to refund the deposits, and the pre-
sent cation was brought to recover them. The plaintiff's
case, mainly defended upoti the contents of the letter of
allotment, which, when praposed to be read, was objected to
by the defendant's counsel, upon the ground that it was in
the nature of an agreement, and it therefore could not be
received is evidence without a stamp.
The Lord Chief Baron held that the oNection was valid,
and nonsuited the plaintiff, reserving leave to move to enter
a verdict for him for 211., if the court should be of opinion
that the document did not require a stamp.
BARNETT' V. BATES. BREACH OF AN AGREEMENT
tiertan Seat —This was an action to recover 501., for a
breath of an agreement under seal. It appeared that the de-
fendant had been proprietor of a school at Bishop's etortford,
and in 1841 enter td into an agreement to sell the good-will of
the establishment to the plaintiff for 1501., which wee to be mild
by instalments. It was stated by the agreement, which
formed the foundation of the present action, that the de-
fendant should not estahlish or keep any school for the edu-
cation of young persons, at any time whatever, within
twenty miles of Bishop's Storford, and that upon the breach
of that part of the agreement he should forfeit a penalty of
50C., which was to be paid by him to the plaintiff In 1844
the defendant did establish a school for boys, and his
daughter another for girls, in the town of 13ishop'sStortford,
and the number of his pupils greatly exceeded that in the
plaintiff's school in that locality. These being the facts, it
was contended that the full penalty of 501. had been incurred
by the defendant, and that it could not be liquidated. For the
defendant it wail maintained, that the messing of the agree-
ment was, that 501. was the utmost sum the plaintiff could be.
under any circumstances, entitled to, but that the jury
might give their verdict for any less sum they conceived
would be sufficient to compensate the plaintiff for the actual
damages he had sustained by the alleged breach, and it was
submitted that they ware merely nominal.
The Lord chief Baron was of opinion that the plaintiff
was entitled to recover only suet a sum as would meet the

plaintiff, in rei
letter from Mr.
29th of Octob.,
r
been allotted t
mittee. Amon
deposits of 21. 2
Bank within a
that requisition
receipt. In Dr
=dile then op
I pealed he had
give him seri;
receipt, althot
be entitled 1
The committee
sent action was
case, mainly de
allotment, whi(
by the deft nda,
the nature of a
received is evil(
The Lord Ch
and nonsuited
a verdict for hi,
that the docent
BARNETT V.
lINDER SEAL-
breath of an agi
fendant had be(
and in 1841 eat
the establishme
by instalments.
formed the foe
fendant should
cation of you(
twenty miles o 4
of that part of t
F air, which was
the defendant
daughter anoth
and the number
plaintiff's schoc
was contendr d I
by the defender
defendant it we
I molt was, that t
under any clrc
might give the
would be safari
• damages he had
I submitted that 1
The Lord pi
way entitled to
•