Archer v Williams
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1846 |
| Date | 01 January 1846 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 175 E.R. 11
QUEEN'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
[26] Before Mr Justice Cresswell Feb 24th, 1846. archer v williams (Where defendant, after signing an acknowledgment that certain scrip had been " lodged in his hands " by plaintiff, and was to be redelivered to him on request, wrongfully detained the scrip for a considerable time, so that its market value had been much diminished, and did not redehver it until after action brought : -Held, that the action was rightly brought in detinue, as the term " lodged " implied that the identical scrip was to be returned ; and also, that plaintiff was entitled to more than nominal damages On the second point a bill of exceptions was tendered. But where the plaintiff suffered loss by the detention, m this, that he was thereby deprived of the means of paying up his deposits, which would have entitled him to claim an allotment of one hundred other shares :-Held, that the damage was too remote, and plaintiff could not recover.) Detinue -The facts of this case were these: The plaintiff was secretary to the North Wales Railway Company, and in that capacity two hundred and fifty shares of the company had been allotted to him. In March 28th, 1845, he deposited the scrip with the defendant, who was solicitor of the company, and received from him the following acknowledgment. " Mr. Archer has this day lodged with me two hundred and fifty shares of the North Wales Railway Company, which I undertake to re-deliver to him on demand " Signed by defendant Defendant then sent the scrip into the market, but whether with plaintiff's consent or knowledge, did not distinctly appear In the course of May, being requested by plaintiff to return the scrip, he refused to do so, and claimed a hen upon it, unless a debt which he alleged was due to him from the plaintiff was previously discharged This action was consequently brought on the 7th August, for the detention of the scrip , and damages were likewise claimed for the loss of one hundred additional shares, which would have been assigned to the plaintiff had he paid in due time the deposits on the former two hundred and fifty : this, but for the detention, he would have been able to do At the time when the action was brought the North Wales scrip was at a premium of two per cent , and in September at four and three-eights , but in November it had fallen to one quarter discount In that month the defendant obtained a Judge's order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baud Corp., N.V. v. Brook, (1978) 12 A.R. 271 (SCC)
...[1973] 3 O.R. 629, affirmed (1976), 60 D.L.R.(3d) 431 (Ont. C.A.), ref'd to. [para. 33]. Archer v. Williams (1846), 2 Car. & K. 26; 175 E.R. 11, ref'd to. [para. Simmons v. London Joint Stock Bank, [1891] 1 Ch. 270, affirmed [1891] 1 Ch. 287, reversed on other grounds sub. nom. London J......
-
William Forrester Bramley, Appellant, Joseph Chesterton, Respondent
...article which has fallen in value between the time it was taken and the time it was returned:" Maine, p. 217, citing Williams v. Archer, 2 C. & K. 26, 5 C. B. 318. " The action was detinue for railway scrip which was delivered up under an order in the above terms. The plaintiff proceeded to......
-
Berliz v. Charter Oil Co., (1975) 6 N.R. 68 (SCC)
...23]. Kinkel et al. v. Hyman, [1939] S.C.R. 364, folld. [para. 25]. R. v. Arnold, 75 W.W.R. 201, folld. [para. 42]. Archer v. William, 175 E.R. 11, dist. [para. Kinkel v. Hayman and Porcupine United Gold Mines, [1939] S.C.R. 364, folld. [para. 46]. Albrecht v. Imperial Oil Limited, 21 W.W.R.......
-
Luke Healy v Charles Copland
...Bench LUKE HEALY and CHARLES COPLAND. Clements v. FlightENR 16 M. & W. 42. Archer v. WilliamsENR 17 Law Jour. C. P.82; S. C. 2 Car. & K. 26. Jones v. DowleENR 9 M. & W. 19. Norman v. Reid 10 Ir. Law Rep. 207. Partridge v. Bank of England 9 Ad. & El., N. S. 396. Philips v. RobinsonENR 4 Bing......