Chase and Others, Assignees of William and Thomas Hurst (Bankrupts), against James and David Westmore
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 May 1816 |
| Date | 21 May 1816 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 105 E.R. 1016
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Adopted, Scarfe v. Morgan, 1838, 4 M. & W. 283.
[180] chase and others, Assignees of William and Thomas Hurst (Bankrupts), against james and david westmore. Tuesday, May 21st, 1816. A workman having bestowed his labour upon a chattel in consideration of a price fixed 5M.&S. 181. CHASE V. WESTMORE 1017 in amount by hte agreement with the owner, may detain the chattel until the price be paid; and this, though the chattel be delivered to the workman in different parcels, and at different times, if the work to be done under the agreement be entire. Semble, that where the parties contract for a particular time or mode of payment, the workman has not a right to set up a claim to the possession inconsistent with the terms of the contract. [Adopted, Scarfe v. Morgan, 1838, 4 M. & W. 283.] Trover for a quantity of wheat-meal, fine pollard, coarse pollard, and bran, together with some sacks which were stated in the first count of the declaration to be the property of the bankrupts, and in the second count, of the plaintiffs as their assignees. On the trial before Graham B. at the Hants Spring Assizes, 1815, a verdict was found for the plaintiff for 12001., subject to the opinion of the Court upon the following case: The bankrupts were, before their bankruptcy, in partnership as mealmen, the defendants were partners as millers. One of the bankrupts, before the act of bankruptcy, applied to the defendants to grind a quantity of wheat, when it was agreed between them that the wheat should be sent by the bankrupts in their vessels, and that the defendants should grind it at 15s. per load, for which sum the defendants were to unload the wheat from the vessels, grind it, find sacks to manufacture it in, and return the meal, &c. when ground, into the bankrupts' vessels in the river near to which the mill was situated. About 19 loads of the wheat were sent at first, afterwards other quantities, making in the whole 146 loads. It was agreed that if any mixture was to take place, one of the bankrupts should correspond with the defendants on the subject, and, in fact, some of the grain was afterwards mixed at his request. At the time of the bankruptcy there remained in the de-[181]-fendants' possession seven loads of wheat unground, 10 of meal produced by wheat which had been ground, 60 bushels of fine pollard, 20 bushels of coarse pollard, 20 bushels of bran, also produced from the wheat ground, and 80 sacks which had been delivered by the bankrupts to the defendants, for the purpose of being filled with the meal ground from the corn. The defendants, on demand made on the part of the plaintiffs, after the bankruptcy, refused to deliver up this property. And two questions were argued in the last term, by A. Moore for the plaintiffs, and by Gifford for the defendants : first, whether the defendants had a right to detain this property for their general balance, under the statute 5 G. 2, c. 30, s. 28. Secondly, whether they had a lien on it, in whole or in part, that is to say, for the balance due to them for grinding all the wheat which had been ground by them, or for the grinding only of such part as had been and remained ground in their hands at the time of the bankruptcy. Upon the last point it was argued for the plaintiffs, that a general lien, if it existed, should have been found as a fact, or, at least, should clearly be dedueible from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tappenden v Artus
...and imperfect stage of development; see the old authorities cited by Lord Ellnborough (chief Justice) in ( Chase v. Westmore 1816 volume Maule & , page 180) Because it arises in consequence of a contract, it is tempting to a twentith century lawyer to think of a common law lion as possessin......