Biggs and Others against Lawrence
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 November 1789 |
| Date | 18 November 1789 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 100 E.R. 673
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Distinguished, Bauerman v. Radenuis, 1798, 7 T. R. 668. Referred to, Kaufman v. Gerson [1903], 2 K. B. 118; [1904], 1 K. B. 591.
bigos and others against lawrence. Wednesday, Nov. 18th, 1789. An action cannot be maintained by several partners for goods sold by one of them living in Guernsey, and packed by him in a particular manner for the purpose of smuggling, though the other partners, who resided in England, knew nothing of the sale; for it is a contract by subjects of this country made in contravention of the laws : and this case must be considered in the same light as if all the partners lived in England. Where an agent is employed to buy goods, his acknowledgment of having received them is evidence of a delivery to the buyer. [Distinguished, Bauerman v. Radenuis, 1798, 7 T. R. 668. Referred to, Kaufman v. Gerson [1903], 2 K. B. 118; [1904], 1 K. B. 591.] Upon a rule to shew cause why there should not be a new trial, in a cause tried before Buller, J. at the last assizes in Cornwall; the learned Judge reported that this was an action for goods sold and delivered, brought by four partners, plaintiffs, three (4) 23 Geo. 2, c. 33, s. 19. (a) Ante, 5. K. B. xxix.-22 674 BIGGS V. LAWRENCE 3 T. R. B. of whom lived in England, and the other in Guernsey. The defendant, who lived in Cornwall, sent an order for some brandy to the partner living in Guernsey, which he directed to be delivered to one Wood, the captain of a smuggling vessel. Some of it was delivered at Guernsey, other part of it at sea. It was all put, by the partner at Guernsey, into half ankers, and ready slung for the purpose of smuggling: but it was to be brought into England at the risk of the defendant. The contract was made, and the goods delivered, without the privity or personal participation of the three partners residing in England. Two objections were made at the trial by the defendant's counsel; 1st, that Wood's hand-writing, acknowledging the receipt of the goods, was not sufficient to charge the defendant, but that Wood himself ought to have been called: but as it was established that Wood was the defendant's agent foi1 this purpose, the goods being directed to be delivered to him, Mr. Justice Buller thought that any acknowledgment under his hand was evidence against his principal, as much as if it had been an acknowledgment in the hand-writing of the defendant himself. 2dly, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anglo Petroleum v TFB (Mortgages)
...v Brooks was one of a number of cases in which a seller supplied goods in a form tailored to an unlawful purpose. Other examples are Biggs v Lawrence (1789) 3 TR 454 and Waymell v Reed (1794) 5 TR 599, where goods were packed and delivered in a manner designed for smuggling. The sellers we......
-
Regazzoni v K. C. Sethia (1944) Ltd
...public policy is involved. Whether the illegality be robbery on Hounslow Heath or smuggling goods into England contrary to our law (see Biggs v. Lawrence (1789) 3 Term Rep. 454) or the hiring of a brougham to a prostitute for the purpose of her trade, a party cannot recover in a Court of Ju......
-
Regazzoni v K. C. Sethia (1944) Ltd
...that is not the sole ground on which these Courts will refuse to enforce a contract. The cases starting from ( Biggs v. Lawrence 1789, 3 Term Reports, page 454), and finishing with ( Foster v. Driscoll 1929, 1 K.B., at page 470), show that if two persons agree together on a transaction whic......
-
REFORMING ILLEGALITY IN PRIVATE LAW
...160, 2001) at para 2.11. 30 (1813) 105 ER 222 at 223, per Le Blanc J. 31 Hodgson v Temple (1813) 128 ER 656; see also Biggs v Lawrence(1789) 100 ER 673 and Waymell v Reed(1794) 101 ER 335. 32 See, eg, Re Mahmoud and Ispahani[1921] 2 KB 716 at 724—725 per Bankes LJ; Edler v Auerbach[1950] 1 ......