Dickenson against Naul
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 April 1833 |
| Date | 20 April 1833 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 596
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 1 N. & M. 721.
[638] dickenson against NATO. Saturday, April 20th, 1833. An auctioneer, , employed by a supposed executrix, sold goods of the testator, but before payment, the real executrix claimed the money from the buyer: Held, that the auctioneer could not afterwards maintain an action against the buyer, though the latter had expressly promised to pay on being allowed to take away the goods, which he did. [S. C. 1 N. & M. 721.] Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Plea, the general issue. At the trial before Denman C.J. at the last assizes for the county of Lincoln, it appeared that the plaintiff, an auctioneer, was employed to sell the stock of a farm by one Anne Court, supposed to be the widow and executrix of a deceased farmer of the name of Court, who had bequeathed by will his personal property to his wife Anne. The goods were sold by auction to the defendant, who, after an objection had been made to his taking them away without payment, promised, on his being allowed to do so, that he would pay. Long after the sale it was discovered that the testator had, at the time of his marriage with his supposed executrix, a wife living whose Christian name was Anne, and she obtained probate and administered, and gave the defendant notice not to pay over the price of the goods to the plaintiff. Parol evidence was offered, but rejected, to shew that the testator intended to bequeath his property to his presumed wife. The defendant paid 31. Is. into Court on account of auction duty. Upon this evidence the Lord Chief Justice nonsuited the plaintiff; but reserved liberty to him to move to enter a verdict for the price of the goods. Humfrey now moved accordingly (a), and he cited Williams v. Millington (1 H. Bl. 81), Ooppin v. Walker (7 Taunt. 237), and Coppin [639] v. Craig (7 Taunt. 243), to shew that an auctioneer might maintain an action for goods sold by him in the course of his business, against a buyer. In the first of those cases Lord Loughborough said, that an auctioneer had a possession coupled with an interest in goods which he was employed to sell, and also a special property. He also cited Cock v. Taylor (13 East, 399), to shew that the law would imply a contract from the circumstance of the purchaser...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bailey v Harris
...bub afterwards, receiving [914] notice that another person was administrator bo A., paid that person for tbe goods. Dickenson v. Naul (4 B. & Ad. 638), there relied upon by the Court of Exchequer, is an authority to the same effect. [Lord Denman C.J. We had great doubt in that case, for a t......