HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0257 and id is 1 raw text is: LAWSON V. THE BANK OF LONDON
to execute it. I think the execution of the assignment was a condition precedent.
Mr. Turner contends that the execution of the assignment was not the whole con-
sideration for the defendant's undertaking to pay the money. But I apprehend it
was. He says that the procuring the patent and the inrolment of the specification
formed part of the consideration. That, however, is not so. It is no more part of
the consideration than the building of a carriage ordered by me would be part of the
consideration for the payment of the price. The building of the carriage, though
necessary to the performance of the contract on the part of the coachbuilder, is not
the consideration : the consideration for the payment of the price by me is, my receipt
of the carriage.
CRESSWELL, J. I am of the same opinion. It appears upon these pleadings that
the whole consideration for the payment of the money by the defendant was, the
assignment to him by the plaintiff of one third share in the letters-patent. The
assignment was to be made immediately the letters-patent were obtained. The 501.
was not to be paid until the expiration of three years after the letters-patent had been
granted. There has, therefore, been a failure on the plaintiff's part to perform a
condition precedent. In the absence of an assignment, the defendant clearly was not
called upon to pay the money.
CROWDER, J. I am of the same opinion. I cannot for a moment doubt that the
only consideration for the payments by the defendant was, the assignment of a [84]
third share of the patent. There is no ground whatever for saying that that which
was necessary to be done by the plaintiff for the purpose of procuring the letters-
patent, formed any part of the consideration. The only consideration moving from
the plaintiff to the defendant was, the execution of the assignment. That being a
condition precedent, and not having been performed, I think the plaintiff is not in a
situation to maintain this action.
WILLES, J. I also am of opinion that the assignment of the share in the letters-
patent was to precede the payment by the defendant of the 501., and that it was
the entire consideration for it.
Judgment for the defendant.
LAWSON v. THE BANK OF LONDON. April 22, 1856.
[S. C. 25 L. J. C. P. 188 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 716 ; 4 W. R. 481. Applied, Maxwell v. Hogg,
1867, L. R. 2 Ch. 313. See Raggett v. Findlater, 1873, L. R. 17 Eq. 39.]
A declaration stated that the plaintiff had established a bank in London called The
Bank of London, and was the first person who had established a bank by or under
that name, and had established the said bank at great expense, and caused the name
to be published and affixed on the offices of the said bank, so that the same might
be seen and known by the public, and had caused prospectuses of the said bank to
be printed and circulated with the said name and title of The Bank of London
thereon, and the said bank was then commonly known by the name of, and was the
only bank named or styled The Bank of London; whereby the plaintiff had
acquired and was acquiring great gains and profits. It then proceeded to allege
that the defendants, intending to injure the plaintiff in his said bank, and the said
business of his said bank, afterwards, and while his said bank was the only bank
named or styled The Bank of London, wrongfully and fraudulently established
a certain other bank in London under the name, style, and title of The Bank of
London, in imitation of, and as representing, the said Bank of London of the
plaintiff, and wrongfully and fraudulently transacted business at the said bank so
established by the defendants under the said name, and under the false colour and
pretence that the same was the bank established by the plaintiff; and that thereby
the plaintiff had been prevented from carrying on his business at the said bank so
established by him, so fully and extensively as he would otherwise have done, and
had been deprived of profits, and that by means of the premises divers persons were
induced to believe and did believe that the bank so established by the defendants
was the bank called The Bank of London established by the plaintiff :-Held,
that the declaration disclosed no cause of action, it not being averred that the
plaintiff had ever carried on the business of a banker. -Whether an action of this
1296
18 C. B. 84.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0257&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)