Brown against Shevill
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 November 1834 |
| Date | 13 November 1834 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 111 E.R. 54
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 4 N. & M. 277; 4 L. J. K. B. 50.
brown against shevill. Thursday, Nov. 13th, 1834. A butcher sent a beast to the shop of W., another butcher, to be slaughtered : after it had been slaughtered, and the carcass had remained in the shop for some time (but how long did not appear), W.'s landlord distrained it for rent arrear: Held, that the carcass was privileged from distress. [S. C. 4 N. & M. 277 ; 4 L. J. K. B. 50.] Trespass. The first count of the declaration stated, that the defendant seized, took, and distrained certain bullocks' carcasses and meat, the property of the plaintiff, and sold them as a distress, whereby the plaintiff, being a butcher, and exercising that trade, was prevented from supplying his customers with the regular quantity of meat, and was obliged to purchase other carcasses, at a high rate, for his customers. The second and third counts were for seizing and converting the articles, without stating the plaintiff's trade. Plea, not guilty. On the trial before Denman C.J., at the December sittings at G-uildhall, 1833, the plaintiff's case was, that the plaintiff had sent a bullock to the premises of one Woodham, a butcher, to be slaughtered there by Woodham; and that, after it had been so slaughtered, it was seized by the defendant as a distress for rent owing for the premises by Woodham. The Lord Chief Justice told the jury that, if they believed these facts, and that the plaintiff was the real owner, and not merely substituted to evade the distress, they should give a verdict for the plaintiff. The jury found for the plaintiff. In Hilary term last, [139] Hutchinson obtained a rule to shew cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial had. F. Pollock now shewed cause. After verdict, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was not the real owner : and this raises the question, whether goods under these circumstances be not protected from distress. The judgment in Simpson v. Harcourt, cited in Gorton v. Falkner(a), though it confined the privilege of implements of trade from distress, to cases where there is no other sufficient distress to be found, and to such implements as are in actual use at the time of the distress, or cannot be restored in the same plight, yet admitted the absolute privilege of things delivered to persons exercising their trade, as cloth in a tailor's shop. [He was then stopped by the Court.] Massy Dawson, contra. In Gorton v. Falkner (a), Ashhurst J. lays it down as a general principle, that all chattels found in a person's house are liable to be distrained by the landlord, adding, that " the foundation of this principle is, that as the landlord is supposed to give credit to a visible stock on the premises, he ought to have recourse to everything which he finds there." The exceptions to this rule are reducible to the principle cited by Dallas C.J., in Gilman v. Elton (3 Br. & B. 80), from Gislowrn v. Hurst (1 Salk. 250), that "goods delivered to any person exercising a public trade or employment, to be carried, wrought, or managed in the way of his trade or employ, are, for that time, under a legal protection, and privileged from distress for rent." The same principle [140] has since been recognised in Wood v...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Poole v Longuevill et Al
...2 C. & P. 353, Matthias v. Tfiesnard; auctioneers ; 1 Or. & M. 380, Adams v. Gro.iv,. 1 Tyrw. 336, S. C. ; and lastly, carcase butchers; 2 A. & E. 138, Brown v. Shevill. 4 N. & M. 277, S. C. ; but has not been allowed to carriages standing at livery ; 3 Burr. 1498, Francis v. Wyatt; nor to ......
-
Swire v Leach
...v. Mtxtuinl, 2 C. & P. 353; auctioneers,-Adams v. Grant;, 1 C. & M. 3SO, 3 Tyrwh. 326; and, lastly, carcase-butchers,-Brown v. She-till, 2 Ad. & E. 138, 4 N. & M. 277 ; but has not been allowed to carriages standing at livery,-Francis v. Jl'yatt, 3 Burr. 1498; nor to stocking-frames sent wi......
-
Nargett against Nias
...on a technical ground. Now, trespass is the proper form of action for distraining goods absolutely privileged ; Brown v. Shevill (2 A. & E. 138). It is, therefore, the proper form of action for distraining goods which are privileged sub modo, if, at the time of the distress, the condition w......
-
Muspratt v Gregory
...v. Maxhiter, 1 Bing. 283; 8 Moore, 25{t), auctioneers (Adams v. Grane, I C. & M. 380), and finally, carcass butchers (Brown v. '^hevill, 2 A. & E. 138; 4 Nev. & Man. 277); in all which cases goods are neces-[657]-sarily placed in their hands; necessarily I mean in this sense, that they must......