Bates against Pilling and Seddon
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 November 1826 |
| Date | 10 November 1826 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 108 E.R. 367
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 9 D. & R. 44; 5 L. J. K. B. O. S. 40. Referred to and applied, Codrington v. Lloyd, 1828, 8 A. & E. 452.
bates against pilling and seddon. Friday, November 10th, 1826. A. employed B., an attorney, to enforce payment of a debt. B. directed his agent to sue out a justicies in the County Court. Before the return of the justicies the debtor paid debt and costs to B. His agent, not knowing of such payment, afterwards entered up judgment in the County Court, although the defendant had not appeared, and sued out execution under which the goods of the debtor were seised : Held, that A. and B. were liable as trespassers. [S. C. 9 D. & R. 44; 5 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 40. Referred to and applied, Codringtm v. Lloyd, 1838, 8 A. & E. 452. Trespass for breaking and entering the plaintiff's dwelling-house, and taking his f oods and chattels. Plea, not guilty. At the trial before the justices of the Great essions of the Chester Circuit, the following appeared to be the facts of the case. Bates, the plaintiff, being indebted to Pilling in the sum of 21. 5s. 6d., the latter instructed the defendant Seddon, an attorney residing at Manchester, to apply to Bates for payment. Seddon, after making several applications to Bates, in-[39]-structed Thomas Smith, his agent at Chester, to issue a justicies against Bates, and to send it to Birch, a sheriff's officer at Stockport, to be executed. A justicies was issued, returnable the 29th of March 1825; it was served upon Bates on the 25tb, and on that day he called on Seddon at Manchester and paid the debt and costs. On the 29th Seddon wrote to Smith, to inform him that the action was settled. But on the same day Smith had signed judgment (the defendant Bates not having appeared), and sued out execution and delivered it to Birch with instructions to levy the debt and costs, and under that execution the debt and costs were levied on the 31st of March. Upon this evidence it was contended, that the defendants were not liable in this form of action for assuming that Seddon had been guilty of negligence in not countermanding the process, still he would not thereby become a trespasser, but would be answerable only in a special action on the case. Here, Pilling had merely instructed Seddon to enforce payment of the debt, and Seddon had only instructed Smith to sue out a justicies; the latter had, therefore, exceeded his authority, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connelly v Wallace and Others
...new trial granted, but that in all other respects the appeal should be disallowed. (1) Before FitzGibbon , Murnaghan and Meredith JJ. (1) 6 B. & C. 38. (1) 11 C. B. 434. (2) 1 Q. B. 3. (3) 18 Q. B. D. 471. (4) 55 L. T. 543. (5) 7 Q. B. 928. (6) 3 Moo. P. C. 36. (7) 4 H. & N. 712. (8) 8 A. &......
-
Peacock v Bell and Kendal
...Oodringtm, v. Lloyd. 1 Perr. & D. 157, S. C. As to the liability of the plaintiff, see 3 Wils. 368. 9 East, 346, Carrett v. Smallpage. 6 B. & C. 38. 7 Bing. 677, Perkins v. Plympton. 5 Moo. & P. 731, S. C. 1 Mees. & W. 408, Bryant v. Glutton. 1 Q. B. 18, Canratt v. Morley. 1 G. & Dav. 275, ......
-
Camidge against Allenby
...whether they operate as a discharge of the debt due to-the plaintiff in respect of the corn. The rule as to all negotiable instruments is^ 6B.&C.38S. .CAM1DGE V. ALLENBY ' 493 that if they are taken in payment of a pre-existing debt, they operate as a discharge of that debt, unless the part......
-
Dickson v Capes, Stuart and Tyrrell
...the MarshalseaENR 10 Co. Rep. 68 b. noteENR 10 Co. Rep. 76 a. Barker v. Braham 3 Wils. 378, 386; S. C., 2 W. Bl. 866. Bates v. PillingENR 6 B. & C. 38. Bryant v. Clatton 1 . & W. 408. West v. SmallwoodENR 3 M. & W. 418. Codrington v. Lloyd 8 A. & E. 449. Green v. Elgie 5 Q. B. 99. Cooper v.......