From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.
Coggs v. Bernard
King’s Bench
92 Eng. Rep. 107 (1703)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
William Bernard (defendant) promised John Coggs (plaintiff) that he would move several barrels of Coggs’s brandy from one cellar to another. The promise was gratuitous, meaning that Bernard was not receiving any compensation from Coggs. In moving the barrels, Bernard was negligent and caused a spillage, losing several gallons of brandy. Coggs sued Bernard, seeking to recover the value of the spilled brandy. Judgment was entered in Coggs’s favor, but Bernard moved for an arrest of judgment, arguing that the judgment was contrary to law because Bernard was not a common carrier and was not receiving compensation for his services, and therefore he should not be liable. The King’s Bench considered the motion.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Holt, C.J.)
Concurrence (Powell, J.)
Concurrence (Gould, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
