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/ssactsengr0579 and id is 1 raw text is: DAFTER V. CRESWELL
Assumpsit for marble chimney-pieces sold and delivered, with the common
money counts. Plea-General issue.
The question raised was, whether the following written agreement (which was
not declared on in any special count), required a stamp.
Marble chimney-pieces for the Castle Inn. Two black marble in the large room,
one statuary in the back room adjoining. (It specified several more chimney-
pieces.)
Memorandum of an agreement between Breeds, Farncomb, & Co., and Thomas
Hughes, Clerkenwell, London. The aforesaid T. Hughes doth agree to finish the
aforesaid marble chimney-pieces in a tradesman-like manner, at prices before agreed
to, by the 4th of June, 1818.
This agreement agreed to on the 1st day of May, 1818.
T. Hughes doth further agree to execute the above order by the time above
mentioned. In default, T. Hughes to forfeit the price of the aforesaid chimney-
pieces. A bill at three months for the amount. (Signed by the parties.)
Chitty, for the defendant Farncomb, objected, that this agreement required a
stamp, because the goods were not in a state to be delivered when the agreement was
entered into-something more was to be done-they were to be finished. And he
cited Biiaxon v. Bedal, 3 Ea. 303 (a).
[160] Abbott, C. J.-I think this is a contract relating to the sale of goods ; and,
therefore, within the exception of the Stamp Act : the defendants order the goods,
and the plaintiff is to complete and send them. That is only goods sold.
Campbell on the same side. Perhaps your Lbrdship will save the point. This
agreement was entered into before the goods were complete ; and therefore is an
agreement for work to be done, as well as for the sale of the goods when complete,
and therefore ought to be stamped. The plaintiff first agrees to make what were
blocks of marble into chimney-pieces ; and then to sell them to the plaintiff : it
cannot, therefore, be an agreement for the sale of goods; as they were not goods in a
state to be sold at the time of entering into the contract.
Abbott, C. J.-It by no means appears that the chimney-pieces did not exist at
all, but rather the contrary, for it seems they only required to be finished. I am
clearly of opinion, that this is a contract relating to the sale of goods, and therefore
does not require any stamp. I think that the fact, that something remained to be
done to the goods before the delivery makes no difference ; indeed, I have no doubt
on the point.
Verdict for the plaintiff.. -Damages, £77, 16s.
Gurney and D. F. Jones, for the plaintiff.
Campbell and Chitty, for the defendant Farncomb.
Hutchinson, for the defendant Breeds.
[Attornies-G. Selby, and Knowles for the defendant Breeds and Gregson &
F. for the defendant Farncomb.]
[161] Jan. 11th, 1826.
DAFTER V. CRESWELL, ESQ.
(If one execute a ship's articles to serve on board as an able seaman, at certain wages,
and when on board act as a cuddy-servant ; if there be no express agreement
that he shall receive separate wages as a cuddy-servant, he can maintain no
aetion against the captain for wages in that capacity. Whether he could, if
there were an express agreement.-Quamre.)
[Subsequent proceedings, 7 D. & R. 650. Explained, Hanson v. Royden,
1867, L. R. 3 C. P. 47.]
Assumpsit for work and labour as a servant.
It appeared on the part of the plaintiff, that he was employed as the cuddy-
servant of the Astell East India ship, of which the defendant was the captain; and
the plaintiff's former master, Captain Freeman, proved, that he had employed him,
and found him a valuable cuddy-servant, and always gave him enough to make up
(a) In that case it was held, that a contract for the making of goods required a
stamp. The words of the exemption in the Stamp Act, 55 Geo. III. c. 184, are
memnoralndun, letter, or agreement made for or relating to the sale of any goods,
wares, or merchandizes.
N. P. 1.-3*
2 CAR. & P. 160.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0579&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)