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/ssactsengr0247 and id is 1 raw text is: 510 THE FISHMONGERS' COMPANY V. ROBERTSON 5 MAN. & 0. 131.
Viet. c. 47. See sect. 54, div. 14); but it would not have been a breach of the peace.
Tindal C. J. To make this a good defence there should be a direct allegation either
of a breach of the peace committing at the time of giving the plaintiff into custody,
or that a breach had been committed, and that there was reasonable ground for
apprehending its renewal.]
The learned serjeant then prayed and obtained
Leave to amend.
[131] THE WARDENS AND COMMONALTY OF THE MYSTERY OF FISHMONGERS OF
THE CITY OF LONDON v. JOHN ROBERTSON, JOHN GYLLYATT BOOTH, FRANCIS
WILLIAM STAINES, AND FOUR OTHERS. Jan. 19, 1843.
[S. C. 6 Scott, N. R. 56; 12 L. J. C. P. 185. Discussed, Copper Miners' Companiy v.
Fox, 1851, 16 Q. B. 237. Referred to, South of Irelaqd Colliery' Company v. Waddle,
1868-69, L. R. 3 C. P. 471 ; L. R. 4 C. P. 617. Discussed, Kidderminster Corporation
v. l1ardwick, 1873, L. R. 9 Ex. 20. For subsequent proceedings see 1 C. B. 60;
3 C. B. 970.]
A declaration in assumpsit by a corporation, stated that the defendants had presented
a petition to the House of Commons for leave to bring in a bill for draining certain
slob or waste lands in Ireland, the introduction of which bill was opposed by the
plaintiffs, and also by A. ; and that by a certain agreement made between B. on
behalf of the plaintiffs, of the first part, C. on behalf of A. on the second part, and
the defendants of the third part, it was agreed that the plaintiffs and A. should
withdraw all opposition to the bill; that the clauses therein should be settled by the
solicitors of the parties, in order that the bill might be as perfect and beneficial as
it could be made; that the plaintiffs and A. should use all reasonable means and
endeavours to promote the progress of the bill; that part of the slob should be
allotted to the plaintiffs, and part to A. ; that the defendants would, on the passing
of the act, pay the plaintiffs 10001. ; and that the defendants would pay all costs of
obtaining the act; that by a memorandum indorsed upon the agreement, with the
consent of all parties, and signed by D. as agent to the defendants, it was declared
that the plaintiffs and A. were severally and jointly bound; that the 10001. was to
be paid to the plaintiffs for expenses incurred by them in a survey and for plans,
&c. of which the defendants were to have the benefit; but that the plans, &c. were
to be returned to the plaintiffs if the 10001. were not paid. The declaration then
stated, that in consideration of the agreement and memorandum, and of the premises,
and that the plaintiffs would perform all things in the said agreement, &c. on their
part, the defendants promised to perform all things therein on their part, so far as
concerned the interest of the plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs delivered the plans, &c. ;
that they withdrew all opposition to the bill; that A. did the same, &c., whereof
the defendants had notice.-Held, that it might be inferred that the contract was
not under seal.-Held also, that it was not such a contract as would fall within the
exceptions to the general rule requiring corporate contracts to be by deed. But
-Held also, that the contract having been executed on the part of the corporation,
and the defendants having received the full consideration, the latter were bound by
the contract, and the plaintiffs were entitled to sue thereon. -Semble, that if the
contract had remained executory, the fact of the corporation having put it in suit
would have amounted to an admission on record of their liability under it, so as to
estop them from disputing such liability in a cross action.-Semble also, that up to
the time of the corporation adopting the contract by performing the condition on
their part, there was a want of mutuality, as they could not be compelled to perform
the contract; and consequently that the defendants during that interval had the
power to retract.-Held, that, the interest of the plaintiffs and of A. being several,
the latter was properly omitted to be made a co-plaintiff. -Held also, that the agree-
ment declared upon was not illegal as being an agreement against public policy.-
Held also, that a plea-that the bill was not as perfect and beneficial as it might
have been made, was no answer to the action.-Held also, that the using by the
plaintiffs of all reasonable means and endeavours to procure the bill to pass, was not
a condition precedent, and therefore that a plea traversing that averment was bad.
-Held also, that a plea stating that the plaintiffs had presented a petition to the](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0247&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)