Adams v Grane and Osborne
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1833 |
| Date | 01 January 1833 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 149 E.R. 447
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
3 Tyr. 326; 2 L. J. Ex. 105.
adams v. grane and osborne. Exch. of Pleas. 1833.-Goods sent to an auctioneer to be sold on premises occupied by him are privileged from distress for rent. [3 Tyr. 320 ; 2 L. J. Ex. 105.] Case for an excessive distress, with a count in trover. Plea-Not guilty. At the trial, before Vaughan, B., at the London Sittings in this term, it appeared that the plaintiff, who was a manufacturer of feather beds, had sent the goods in question to the rooms of one Mott, an auctioneer, to be by him sold there by auction. These rooms were part of a house belonging to one of the defendants, on lease to one Armstrong, who had fitted up the lower part of the house as public auction rooms, and was in the habit of letting them out to different auctioneers for their salea. The words "Armstrong's auction rooms" were printed in large characters on the outside of the rooms. Mott had taken these rooms from Armstrong for a week, for a sale which was advertised by him as a sale of goods sold under an assignment for the benefit of creditors, although they really were goods which had been sent by the plaintiff and others to Mott to be sold. The defendants distrained the goods in question for rent due from Armstrong to the defendant Osborrie. The learned Baron nonsuited the plaintiff, but gave him leave to move to enter a verdict for the value of the goods. John Evans accordingly obtained a rule nisi to enter a verdict; against which cause was now shewn by- Platt, Follett, and Channel!. It is a general rule, that [381] a landlord has a right to distrain all goods that ho finds on the demised premises, and it lies upon the party claiming the exemption to shew that the goods seized as a distress are privileged. The cases in which the privilege has been allowed have always proceeded on the extensive ground of public convenience, and for the benefit of general trade, and riot for the protection of any particular or individual trade. In Fr/mcin v. tt'yatl (3 Burr. 1498 ; 1 Sir VV. Bl. 483) the Court were of opinion that a carriage standing at a livery stable keeper's was not privileged from distress, because the trade of a livery stable keeper was not a public trade, and was not for the necessary advancement of general trade. [Bayley, B. If I am not mistaken, one ground of that decision was, that the carriage was staying there for a permanency, and so occupying the premises for which the rent was payable.] So, in Wood, v. Clarke (I Cr. & ,7. 484), where all the cases on fchis subject.were brought before the Court, it was held, that a frame delivered by the manufacturer to the weaver, together with the materials, for the purpose of being used ifi the weaver's house in the manufacture of such materials, was not privileged from distress, because it was not necessary for the protection of trade that such privilege should exist. The several grounds of exemption are stated in Co. l.itt. 47 a., where it is said-"j Valuable things shall not be distrainedlfor rent, for benefit and maintenance of trade, which, by consequent, aid for the common wealth,'and are there by authority of law ; as a horse in a smith's shop shall not be distrained for the rent issuing out of the shop ; nor the horse, &c. in the hostry; nor the materials in the weaver's shop for making of cloth ; nor cloth or garments in a tailor's shop ; nor sacks of corn or meal in a mill, nor in a market; nor any thing distrained for damage feasant, for it is in custody of law ; and the like." So, Sir W. Blackstone, in his Commentaries (3 vol. 8) says-[382] " Valuable things in the way of trade shall not lie liable to distress, as a horse standing in a smith's shop to be shoed, or in a common inn, or cloth at a tailor's house, or corn sent to a mill or market, for all these are protected and privileged for the benefit of trade, and are supposed, in common presumption, not to belong to the owner of tlie house, but to his customers." The exemption is allowed only where the withholding it would produce a manifest injury to trade, as corn sent to a mill to be iground, for there it is essentially necessary for the benefit of trade and public convenience that such privilege should exist. The language of the cases always puts it on 448 ADAMS V. GRANE 1 C. & M. 383. the benefit to trade and commerce in a large sense ; and in all eases where the exemption is allowed, great injury and injustice would be done if such privilege were not allowed. In all these cases the public must necessarily send their goods to the trader, as a farmer must send his corn to a mill, or cloth to a tailor, or a horse to a farrier's, for it would be idle to suppose that he must have a mill on his own ground, or that he should make his own coat, or shoe his own horse. Besides, the common presumption is, that the corn belongs not to the miller, but to his customers. But this presumption alone would not form a sufficient ground of exemption. In the case of the lively stable keeper, every one must know from common experience that the carriages arc not the property of the livery stable keeper. The presumption that the landlord must know that the goods are not the property of his tenant is only one point of exemption. In Oilman v. Elton (;l B. &...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cupid Jewels Pte Ltd v Orchard Central Pte Ltd
...beneficial interest in the tenancy so as to fall within the ambit of s 10 (1) (c) of the Act: at [93] .] Adams v Grane (1833) 1 Cr & M 380; 149 ER 447 (refd) Challoner v Robinson [1908] 1 Ch 49 (refd) Gilman v Elton (1821) 3 Br & B 76; 129 ER 1211 (refd) Goldring Timothy Nicholas v PP [2013......
-
Cupid Jewels Pte Ltd v Orchard Central Pte Ltd and another appeal
...the UK to include mercantile factors (see Gilman v Elton (1821) 129 ER 1211 (“Gilman”)) and auctioneers (see Adams v Grane and Osborne (1833) 149 ER 447 (“Adams”)) under the limb of “managed in the way of his trade or As alluded to earlier in [21] above, the local law on distress before 187......
-
Brown against Shevill
...for rent." The same principle [140] has since been recognised in Wood v. Clarke (1 Or. & J. 484. S. C. 1 Tyrwh. 314), and Adams v. Grane (1 Cr. & M. 380. S. C. 3 Tyrwh. 326). In order to bring the present case within the principle of the exceptions, three circumstances must therefore concur......
-
Orchard Central Pte Ltd v Cupid Jewels Pte Ltd (Forever Jewels Pte Ltd, non-party)
...decided cases if the court were to hold that goods in the custody of a factor were liable to seizure. In Adams v Grane and Osborne (1833) 149 E.R. 447 (“Adams”), Lord Lyndhurst C B, reasoning by analogy with Gilman, concluded that goods in the possession of an auctioneer fell within the tra......