Firth against Purvis and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 November 1793 |
| Date | 22 November 1793 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 243
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
[432] firth against purvis and others. Friday, Nov. 22d, 1793. It is no answer to an action on the statute 2 W. & M. c. 5, for a pound breach, that the rent and demand were tendered after the distress and impounding.This was an action for treble damages upon the statute 2 *W. & M. c. 5, for a pound breach, tried before the Lord Chief Baron at the last Newcastle Assizes. The declaration stated that J. Mossman, the plaintiff's tenant, was in arrear for rent; that the plaintiff had distrained four pipes of beer for the same, and had impounded them in a convenient part of the premises, with intent to appraise and sell the same, and that the defendants broke the pound and carried the pipes away. The distress was proved, and the proper notice to the tenant, and also notice to the defendants, who were creditors of Mossman, and acted under an assignment from him for the benefit of his creditors, and who had sold the goods distrained. On the part of the defendants it was proved, that about an hour after the distress was made, while the plaintiff was yet upon the premises, which were a public-house, one of the defendants said to him, " Come to the bar with me, and I will pay you your rent and your demand," and at the same time he pulled a purse out of his pocket, which he held in his hand; to which the plaintiff answered, "No, I will not have the money, I will have the casks I have seized." Subsequent offers to pay the rent were made to the plaintiff, which he refused, insisting upon the treble damages. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff to the amount of the rent, added to 201. which was to be trebled under the statute. For setting aside this verdict, a rule nisi having been granted,Law and Holroyd were now called upon to support the rule. A legal tender was made in sufficient time to avoid the action. The law with respect to tenders is not so strict, now f s formerly. It is not necessary to count the money down, and offer it in told coin to the party. It is sufficient if there be an offer to pay the particular sum, and the plaintiff refuse to take it at all, either upon the claim of more being due, or the like, but without any specific objection made at the time to the manner in which the tender is made. Here the defendant pulled out a purse at the time the offer to pay was made ; and was prevented from telling out the money by the declaration of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abingdon Rural District Council v O'Gorman
...There had to be an open and manifest act, such as to show that the goods were '-' impounded or otherwise secured". That was the case in Firth v, Purvis (1793) 5 T.R. p. 432, where the plaintiff had distrained four pipes of beer and "had put his nark upon them" and "had impounded them in a c......
-
Ladd against Thomas and Little
...the tender was held sufficient, it is clear that the goods must have been impounded before tender. It is true that in Firth v. Purvis (5 T. R. 432), the Court held that "a tender after the impounding of the distress made was insufficient: " but that was an action for pound breach ; and it m......
-
Ex parte John Danks John Farley, against whom
...Respondent. The following cases were referred to : Douglas v. Patrick (3 T. R. 683 ; and see Wade's case, 5 Co. 114 a.), Firth v. Purvis (5 T. R. 432), Thomas v. Evans (10 East, 101), -Read [937] v. Goldring (2 Man. & Sel. 86), Dickinson v. Sliee (4 Esp. 67), Glass-cott v. Day (5 Esp. 48), ......
-
Johnson against Upham and Another
...the goods were left entirely undisturbed.] There may be an impounding without any disturbance or removal of the goods; Firth v. Purvis (5 T. R. 432), Washborn v. Black (11 East, 405, n.(a)). In the latter case, it is true, as also in Tennant v. Field (8 E. & B. 336), the tenant consented to......