- 460 · 431 llington, The Inhabitants of Meakin (Doe v.) 89 Jackfon v. Shillite Tate (Ormerod v.) 285 Taylor (Derby, The Earl of, v.) 502 656 Teftick (Rex v.) 528 Tyte v. Jones Teftick 181 Wantage, the Inhabit- Wardroper Robinson (Rex v.) Serjeant (Milward v.) Schumann v. Weatherhead Shapcott (Bowen v.) Sharland (Cuming v.) Wantage, (Rex v.) 604 Sherratt (Edwards v.) St. Helen Stonegate, The Inha- bitants of (Rex v.) Stokes (Smith v.) Stratford's Cafe Wardroper (Rex v.) CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE Court of KING'S BENCH, IN Michaelmas Term, In the Forty-first Year of the Reign of GEORGE III. JONES against BRINLEY. 1800. Saturday, An agree fhould be re ceived by the means of not entitle ΤΗ HE plaintiff declared upon a special agreement that in confideration that he had ftated to the defendant that it was in his, ment to pay (the plaintiff's,) power to give the defendant certain information a per centage upon the day which might enable one F. N to receive a confiderable fum of money on which then due to him, and also in confideration that the plaintiff at the re- any money quest of the defendant would give fuch information to the defendant as might enable the faid F. N. to receive the faid fum, the the defendefendant undertook and promised the plaintiff to pay him on the dant through day upon which any money fhould be received by F. N. or by the the plaindefendant on F. N's behalf through the means of the plaintiff's in- tiff's inforformation, the fum of 10l. per cent. on the money fo received. The mation does declaration * then averred that the plaintiff did give the defendant the plaintiff certain information refpecting divers fums of money which F. N. to the ftipu was entitled to receive under and by virtue of the laft will and tefta- lated reward ment of one A. N. deceased, and that F. N. through the means transfer of of such information on the 27th January 1800, did receive the fum flock in conof 500l. whereby the defendant by virtue of his promife became fequence of liable to pay to the plaintiff 50%. &c. The fecond count ftated more generally that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in though he fo much for certain information given by the plaintiff to the defen- might afterdant at his requeft, whereby F. N. was enabled to receive and did ceive the accordingly receive divers large fums before then due to him, and dividends being fo indebted the defendant promifed, &c. There were also thereon. the general money counts and for work and labour. The defendant *[ 2 ] pleaded the general iffue. At the trial before Lord Kenyon at the laft fittings at Guildhall the agreement in writing was proved, whereby the defendant "undertook to pay to the plaintiff on the day upon which any money fhould be received by F. N. or by him, (the defendant), on his behalf, through the means of the plaintiff's information, the fum of 10l. per cent. on the money which fhould be fo received." It was alfo proved that, in confequence of information given by the plaintiff to the defendant, F. N. had obtained 500l. ftock which had ftood in the name of A. N., from whom the defendant derived VOL. I. title B upon the fuch information, al wards re JONES agains BRINLEY. [3] 1800. title as refiduary legatee; and evidence was adduced for the purpofe of fhewing that he had afterwards received ten years dividends due thereon. It was objected by the defendant's counfel that it was flock and not money which had been obtained through the medium of the plaintiff's information, and therefore he was not entitled to recover any thing under the terms of the agreement; and that the dividends were merely confequential to the ftock; and it was not the meaning of the parties that 10l. per cent. fhould be paid upon all the intereft which might accrue, but merely for the principal fum if any. Lord Kenyon admitted the objection and non-fuited the plaintiff. Comyn after ftating the facts as abovementioned, now moved to fet afide the non-fuit, contending that the proof sustained the agreement; for flock was to be estimated as fo much money, into which it was convertible; and that at any rate the receipt of the dividends (a) due at the time of the transfer of the flock was a receipt of fo much money within the meaning of the agreement. But The Court thought the objection well founded; and animadverted upon the immorality of fuch bargains as the one in question, which had grown of late into practice. Rule refused (b). (a) This fact was offered to be more fully fupplied by affidavit; but the Court thought this was not a cate in which the plaintiff should be allo ed to bring toward any fact that had not diftinctly appeared at the trial: and therefore quære as to any opinion on this point. (b) An action for money had and received does not lie to recover frock. Nightingal and others affignees of Mettivier v. Devilme, 5 Burr 2589. and 2 Black. Rep. 684. Lord Mansfield 1a:d, “It is a new fpecies of property, and is not money." [4] Monday, Nov. 10th. One who has a lien on he after SWEET and Another Affignees of GARD, a Bankrupt, against PYM. N trover for certain bales of cloth the facts appeared to be thefe. The bankrupt, a clothier, refiding in London, before his bankgoods in his ruptcy employed the defendant, a fuller refiding in Exeter, in his poffeffion, if bufinefs; and at the time of the transaction aftermentioned the wards deliver bankrupt was indebted to the defendant upon the general balance of them to a accounts in more money than the value of the goods in queftion: and thip carrier by the custom of the trade at Exeter the defendant had a lien for his veyed on ac- general balance. The cloths for which the action was brought count and at had been fent by Gard before his bankruptcy to the defendant to the risk of be fulled as ufual: and after they were finished the defendant, in his principal, though confequence of prior orders from Gard, fhipped them on board a unknown to certain veffel at Exeter to be forwarded to him in London, and fent the carrier, the invoice to Gard. No bill of lading was figned by the captain ver his lien at the time of the fhipment: but foon after the veffel failed, Pym, by topping hearing of Gard's bankruptcy, followed and overtook the captain tranfitu, and off Deal in his paffage to London, and there procured him to fign a bill of lading to Pym or his order, by virtue of which Pym obthem to be tained the delivery of the goods on their arrival in London. cannot reco. the goods in procuring re-delivers to him by virtue of a bill of lading figned by the carrier in the course of his voyage. At |