1854. KEMP v. BALLS. Broadhurst, has since been before the Court of Common Pleas in a case (a) where it was laid down, that a payment to the creditor by a stranger must be for and on account of the debt, and that such payment must be subsequently ratified by the debtor. The plea here is even more faulty than that in Goodwin v. Cremer, as it does not bring the payment within the rule last mentioned. Our judgment therefore must be for the plaintiffs. PLATT, B., and MARTIN, B., concurred. Judgment for the plaintiffs (b). (a) Belshaw v. Bush, 11 C. B. 191. (b) See Simpson v. Eggington, post, Dec. 5. THE GOVERNOR, GUARDIANS, &c., OF THE POOR OF The plaintiffs, THIS guardians of the poor of K. H., with a HIS was a special case, stated by an order of a Judge, for the opinion of this Court. The action was brought view to obtain against the defendant, a butcher, for the breach of an ing tenders for alleged contract by him, to supply the workhouse of Kingthe use of the ston-upon-Hull with meat. The defendant pleaded inter workhouse, is- alia non assumpsit; upon which issue was joined. meat, &c., for sued an adver tisement, stat ing that they The facts were these:-On the 7th of December, 1853, would receive the plaintiffs, being desirous of securing tenders for meat, tenders for the supply of the workhouse with meat for three months, from thirty to fifty stone, more or less, per week, (describing the sort of meat); that sealed tenders were to be sent to the clerk of the corporation; and that all contractors would have to sign a written contract after acceptance of the tender. The defendant wrote to the plaintiffs to say, that he proposed to supply the workhouse with meat, aecording to advertisement, for the ensuing three months, at 6d. per pound. This tender was accepted by the plaintiffs, and the defendant was informed, that he was appointed butcher; but, immediately afterwards, he wrote to the plaintiff to say, that he declined the appointment: -Held, that, as a written contract was to be executed, the acceptance of the tender did not form a binding contract, so as to render the defendant liable for refusing to supply the workhouse with meat, in accordance with his tender. &c., for the use of the poor of Kingston-upon-Hull, issued an advertisement, of which the following is a copy— "The Corporation of the Governor and Guardians of the Poor in Kingston-upon-Hull will, on Wednesday the 21st of December instant, receive tenders for the supply of the workhouse, for three months, for butcher's meat, from thirty to fifty stone (more or less per week) of good ox beef. The parts to be delivered in each week are the thick end of the flanks and the upper and under buttocks, a golister piece and lower end of the chine with the neck end, and a mouse piece of the same ox, without bone. Also, from five to ten stone (more or less per week) of good wether mutton, the parts to consist of legs and necks. "Sealed tenders, accompanied by samples of such articles as will admit thereof, to be forwarded to the clerk of the corporation, before six o'clock of the evening of Tuesday, the 20th instant. "P.S. All contractors will have to sign a written contract after acceptance of tender. On the 21st of December, the plaintiffs sent to several butchers, and, amongst others, to the defendant, the following letter. "Sir, I am instructed by the Governor and Guardians of the Poor, to inform you that they have postponed their reception of tenders, to supply this house with beef and mutton, on the terms of their prior advertisement, for the quarter ending the 21st of March, 1854, until Tuesday next, at six o'clock in the evening, at the workhouse, when they will be ready to receive any tender from you. I am, ROBERT WELLS, Clerk." On Tuesday, the 27th of December, the defendant sent 1854. GOVERNOR &c. OF THE POOR OF KINGSTONUPON-HULL V. PETCH. to the plaintiffs a written tender, signed by him, which was as follows: "To the Governor and Guardians of the Poor of the parishes of Holy Trinity and St. Mary. "A tender for meat. "14, Whitefriar's lane, Hull, Dec. 17. "Gentlemen,-I propose to supply your house with meat according to advertisement, for the ensuing three months at 6d. per pound. Yours, respectfully, " "HENRY PETCH." On the 28th of December, the defendant's tender was accepted; and a memorandum of such acceptance was written on the tender, and the common seal of the corporation was affixed to it. The acceptance of the defendant's tender was notified to him in the following letter: Sir, I am directed by the Governor and Guardians of the Poor of this town, to inform you, that they have appointed you butcher for this corporation, for the quarter ending the 28th of March next. On a subsequent part of the same day, the defendant wrote to the plaintiffs to inform them, that he declined to supply them with meat. The question for the opinion of the Court was, whether the plaintiffs were enabled to recover in this action for the refusal by the defendant to supply the workhouse with meat. If the Court should be of opinion that the action was maintainable, judgment was to be entered for the plaintiffs; but if they should be of a contrary opinion, then judgment of nolle prosequi was to be entered for the defendant. Hugh Hill for the plaintiffs.-The question is, whether The 1854. GOVERNOR &c. OF KINGSTONUPON-HULL V. PETCH. there is any binding contract between these parties. defendant will contend that there was a mere proposal on his part, from which he withdrew. The plaintiffs, on the THE POOR OF other hand, submit that the contract was complete, and that the defendant is bound by it. [Parke, B.-The advertisement expressly states, that there is to be a written contract, signed by the contractor, after the acceptance of the tender. The parties, no doubt, contemplated that a variety of important matters would have to be settled as to the amount of the meat, and the particular times at which it should be delivered, and various other matters of a similar nature, which were not provided for by the handbill. The acceptance of the tender did not complete the contract.] There is, no doubt, that difficulty in the plaintiffs' way. But it would seem from the dates, that it was intended that the tender, when accepted, should be acted on immediately. [Parke, B.-There are many cases, where, though there is an acceptance by parol of a proposal for a contract, various preliminary matters are to be settled prior to the contract being concluded. Martin, B., referred to Cranston v. Marshall (a).] Couling, contrà, was not called on to argue. PARKE, B.-The defendant is entitled to judgment. It was clearly the intention of the parties that there should be no binding engagement until a written contract had been executed. The tender, though accepted, was not a contract. PLATT, B., and MARTIN, B., concurred. Judgment for the defendant (b). (a) 5 Exch. 395. (b) See Vollans v. Fletcher, 1 Exch. 20. 1854. Dec. 5. JESSOPP v. LUTWYCHE To a declara- THE declaration was for money paid by the plaintiff for tion for money counts stated, paid and on ac- the defendant at his request, and for money found to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff on accounts stated between them. the defendant pleaded, first, that the causes of action ac crued after the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, under of certain con tracts made between plaintiff and defendant, by way of gaming upon the market price of shares; and secondly, that the causes of Second plea-"That the causes of action in the declarapassing of the tion mentioned accrued to the plaintiff after the passing of the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, intitled An Act to amend the and by virtue law concerning games and wagers;' and that the said causes of action accrued to the plaintiff under and by virtue of certain contracts or agreements made after the passing of the said Act by and between the plaintiff and defendant, and which said contracts and agreements were by way of gaming and wagering, contrary to the said statute and in violation thereof, to wit, certain contracts or agreements, by way of wager upon the market price on certain days of certain shares, to wit, called the English and Australian London, about Copper Smelting Company, and to pay the difference therethe purchasing and selling for on, contrary to the said statute, whereby the same were the defendant and are null and void." action accrued to the plaintiff as a broker in the City of in the City of London of shares; and tiff was not duly licensed in pursuance -Held, on demurrer, that of the statute: Third plea-"That the causes of action in the dethat the plain- claration mentioned accrued to the plaintiff as a broker in the City of London, to wit, a sharebroker, in and about the purchasing and selling for and on account of the defendant in the City of London of divers interests and shares in a certain mining company, to wit, called the English and Australian Copper Smelting Company; and that the plaintiff was not at the time of the said purchasing or selling or bargaining as aforesaid, or at any or either of the said times, nor at the time of the accruing of the said causes of action, or any or either of them, within the City of London as aforesaid, a broker, duly licensed, authorised, the pleas were bad. |