Edmondson v Nuttall
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 June 1864 |
| Date | 17 June 1864 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 144 E.R. 113
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
34 L. J. C. P. 102; 13 W. R. 53. Referred to, Johnson v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, 1878, 3 C. P. D. 506.
edmondson v. nuttall. June 17th, 1864. [34 L. J. C. P. 102; 1.'5 W. R. 53. Referred to, Johnxon v. La/iicax/tire and Yorkshire Railway Company, 1878, :i 0. P. D. 506.] 1. In, an action for the conversion of goods of which the plaintiff has the immediate right of possession, the true measure of damages is the full value of the goods at the time of the conversion. - 2. The plaintiff had certain looms in the defendant's mill, and demanded possession of them, the defendant having no right to detain them. The defendant, however, having obtained a judgment against the plaintiff in the comity-court, in respect of which he would be entitled to issue execution against him on the next day, refused to deliver them up : and the looms were taken in execution on the following morning, and sold. In an action for this wrongful conversion, - Held, that the liability of the looms to the county-court process, and the fact that by the wrongful seizure the plaintiff's debt was (apparently) satisfied, were not circumstances which the jury could take into consideration in estimating the damages. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a weaver, against the defendant, the owner of a mill at Coates, in the county of Lincoln, to recover damages for the breach of an agreement to provide power for the working of the plaintiff's looms. There was also a count for the conversion by the defendant of seven looms belonging to the plaintiff. To this latter count, - to which alone it is necessary to advert, - the defendant pleaded not guilty and not possessed. The cause waa tried before Blackburn, J., at the [281] last Spring Assizes for th? county of York, when the following facts appeared in evidence: - In July, 1860, the plaintiff agreed! with the defendant for standing and power for twelve looms in the defendant's mill, for which he was to pay 9f cl. per week for each loom (a). After the looms had been at work for about two years, the plaintiff being in arrear with his weekly payments, and being unable to pay, it was agreed that the defendant should take five of the looms in satisfaction. The plaintiff becoming again in arrear for the standing of his remaining looms, the defendant sued him in the county-court, and on Friday the 29th of January, 1864, obtained judgment against him for 281. debt, and (a) See Hcaicgck v. Austin, 14 C. B. (N. S.) 634, where it was held that these weekly payments could not be distrained for as " rent." 114 EDMONDSON V. NUTTALL 17 C. B. (N. S.) 282, 111. 15s. coats ; and the judge made :m order on the plaintiff to pay these sums on the following Monday. On Saturday the 30th, the plaintiff went to the mill for the purpose of removing his looms. The defendant did not then refuse to allow him to take them away, but desired him to come on the following Monday. On the Monday, the plaintiff made a formal demand of the looms, and the defendant said he could not have them then, as he (the defendant) was going out: and on Tuesday the looms were seised (and subsequently sold for 1241. 17s.) under an execution from the county-court at the defendant's suit. The writ in this action was issued on the same day. The jury negatived the plaintiff's claim in respect of the breach of the agreement: and the learned judge reported that he was not dissatisfied with the verdict. As to the count for the conversion, the learned judge told the jury that there was evidence of a conversion of the looms on the Monday, which ho would leave to [282] them; but that) the goods detained being lawfully seized on the Tuesday, and the plaintiff having had the benefit of the proceeds in reduction of his debt, they mi;/fit take that into account in estimating the damages. He also asked them to say what damages they found for the conversion, if in point of law they were bound to give the value of the looms, without reference to the county-court proceedings. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff on the trover count, damages ^d.; and they found the value of the looms to be U51. The learned judge thereupon reserved leave to the plaintiff' to move to increase the damages to 351., if the court should be of opinion that he ought to have directed the jury to find for the value of the looms seized,-neither party to appeal without the leave of the court. Overrend, Q. C., accordingly, in Easter Term last, obtained a rule nisi to increase the verdict to 351., pursuant to the leave reserved, on the ground that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the value of the looms at the time of the conversion, and on the ground that the judge misdirected the jury in telling them that they might take into consideration the probability of the looms being taken in execution. Digby Seymour, (J. C., now shewed cause. The direction of the learned judge was perfectly correct. At the time this action was brought, the goods were actually iti the custody of the law. [Willes, J. The defendant has possession of the goods on Monday, and hei refuses to give them up, hoping that he will have an execution upon them! on the Tuesday. The single question is, whether that reduces the plaintiff's claim in respect'of the wrongful conversion on Monday to [283] nominal damages.] If the plaintiff had succeeded in obtaining the looms on the Monday, the defendant might have seized them on the following day ; and therefore the plaintiff has really lost nothing by the conversion. In Hrierl-y v. Kfwlnll, 17 Q. 13. 9JJ7, by indenture of sale, A. assigned all his household goods, &c., to secure a debt due from him to the assignees, subject to a proviso that the deed should become void upon payment of the said sum on a certain day, or1 on some earlier day to be appointed by the assignees by a notice in writing, to be served on A. twenty-four hours before the day of payment so appointed : interest to be paid in the meantime. It was also agreed by the deed that, after default made in payment, contrary to the said proviso, it should he lawful for tfie assignees to enter and take possession of the goods, and to sell them, and reimburse themselves out of the proceeds, accounting to A. for any surplus ; and that, until 'such default, it should be lawful for A. to hold, use, and possess the said goods withciut hindrance from the assignees. The assignees served A. with a notice to pay on a day earlier than that named in the deed, and afterwards entered and took, and sold tihe goods assigned ; but the notice was bad, having been served less than twenty-four hours before the day of payment appointed by the assignees. It was held, that A. had under the deed the right of possession of the goods, defeasible only by default in payment after due notice, arid that he might therefore sue the assignees in trespass for having wrongfully entered and sold ; but that, in such action, the measure of damages should be, not the value of the goods, but the value of the plaintiff's interest in them...
To continue reading
Request your trial