Acraman v Cooper and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 November 1842 |
| Date | 14 November 1842 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 152 E.R. 604
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 2 Dowl. (N. S.) 485; 12 L. J. Ex. 122.
[585] acramax 'ii. coopek and another. Exch. of Pleas. Nov. 14, 1842.- Trover for two receipts. Plea, that before and at the time when &c. the defendants were lawfully possessed as of their own property of the same receipts, and that being so possessed, the defendants afterwards, and before the said time when &c., delivered the same to one J, D., to be kept by him to and for the use of the defendants, and that J. D. afterwards and before the said time when &c., : delivered the same to the plaintiff; atid that afterwards and before the said time when &c., the plaintiff casually lost the same out of his possession, and the same by finding came to the possession of the defendants ; and that the defendants afterwards refused, upon the request of the plaintiff, to deliver the same to the plaintiff, as they lawfully might for the cause aforesaid, which is the same conversion of which the plaintiff has complained :-Held, that the plea was bad for duplicity, and for not confessing a conversion. [8. C. 2 Dowl. (N. S.) 495 ; 12 L. J. Ex. 122.] Trover. The declaration stated, that the plaintiff theretofore, to wit, on the 10th day of October, 1841, was lawfully possessed, as of his own property, of certain goods and chattels, to wit, two receipts, each of the said receipts purporting to be a receipt of 10,500-, being 35 per share of 300 shares of 100 each, in the capital stock of a Company; known as the Koyal Mail Steam Packet Company, and two scrip receipts relating to money paid on shares of the said Company, two other scrip receipts, and two other pieces of paper, of great value, to wit, of the value of 2000 ; and being so possessed, the plaintiff afterwards, to wit, on the day and year before mentioned, casually lost the said goods and chattels out of his possession, and the same then came to the possession of the defendants by finding; concluding in the usual form. Plea, that before and at the said time when, &c,, in the said declaration mentioned, to wit, on the 1st day of June, A.D. 1841, the defendants were lawfully possessed as of their own property of two receipts, and two scrip receipts, which are the same UBfc&W.SM. ACRAMAN V. COOPER 605 two receipts aud two scrip receipts in the said declaration mentioned ; and that, being so possessed, the defendants afterwards, and before the said time when &c. in the said declaration mentioned, to wit, on the day and year last aforesaid, delivered the same to one John Doe, to be kept by him to and for the use of the said defendants; and that the said John Doe, afterwards and before the said time when, &c., in the declaration mentioned, to wit, on the day and year last aforesaid, delivered the same two receipts and two scrip receipts to the said plaintiff; arid the defendants further say, that [586] afterwards and before the said time when, &c., in the said declaration mentioned, to wit, on the day arid year last aforesaid, the plaintiff' casually lost the said two receipts and two scrip receipts out of his possession, and the same, by finding, came to the possession of the defendants ; and that the defendants afterwards refused, upon the request of the plaintiff', to deliver the same to him the plaintiff, as they lawfully might for the cause aforesaid, and which is the same conversion in the said declaration mentioned, and of which the plaintiff hath above complained against the defendants. Verification. Special demurrer, and joinder therein. The following points were marked for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owen v Challis
...be contended that the doctrine Of colour is obsolete : Ward v. Robins (15 M. & W. 237). [Wilde, C. J., referred to Acraman v. Cooper (10 M. & W. 585). What is there stated in this plea to shew that the plaintiff ever had a right to recover his deposit 1 V. Williams, J. Is the statement in t......
-
Hugh Conyngham Boyd, Administrator of Hugh Boyd, v David Todd
...CoridonENR 1 Keb. 305. AnonymousENR 2 Salk. 655. Ascue v. Saderson Cro. Eliz. 433. Mason v. Farnell 1 D. & Low. 765. Acraman v. CooperENR 10 M. & W. 585. 466 CASES AT LAW. E. T. 1850. Queen'sBench HUGH CONYNGHAM BOYD, Administrator of HUGH BOYD, v. DAVID TODD. (Queen's Bench.) April 16. Tno......