Forth against Simpson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 May 1849 |
| Date | 23 May 1849 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 116 E.R. 1423
QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 18 L. J. Q. B. 263; 13 Jur. 1024.
forth against simpson. Wednesday, May 23d, 1849. The labour and skill employed on a race horse by a trainer are a good foundation for a lien; but, if by usage or contract the owner may send the horse to run ut any race he chooses, and may select the jockey, the trainer has no continuing right of possession, and, consequently, no lien. [S. C. 18 L. J. Q. B. 263 ; 13 Jur. 1024.] This was a feigned issue, to try the question whether the plaintiff bad any and what lien on each of three race horses on the 24th of December 1847. On the trial, before Coleridge J., at the Sussex Spring Assizes, 1848, a verdict was found for the plaintiff, leave being reserved to move to enter a verdict for the defendant or a nonsuit ; the Court to be at liberty to draw any inferences of fact from the statement on the Judge's notes. In Easter terra, 1848, Shee Serjt,, obtained a rule nisi accordingly. The facts appeared to be as follows. The horses were seized under a fi. fa. on a judgment obtained by the [681] defendant against one Worley, to whom they belonged. The plaintiff kept training stables; and the horses were sent to him by Worley, to be trained and kept. From time to time the horses, by the order of Worley, were sent to run at different races. On these occasions, they went under the care of a servant of the plaintiff, and were placed in stables belonging to the plaintiff, of which his servant kept the key. The travelling expenses were paid by Worley. Worley selected and paid the rider at the race. It further appeared that the owner had no controul over the trainer as to the feeding and exercise of the horses during the time they were in the trainer's stables: but that, if an owner wished to ee his horse gallop, the trainer would not refuse it. The horses were seized on 24th December 1847, while they were in the plaintiff's stable. The plaintiff claimed a lien of 21. 2s. per week, for the time during which they were in his stable, which sura comprehended the charges both for keeping and for training. The present issue was directed by an interpleader order. The ease came on for hearing in Michaelmas term (November 20th), 1848; when the Court (a) called upon Shee Serjt. and Bovill, in support of the rule. There was no lien in this case, because there was no exclusive possession. The owner, according to the arrangement between him and the plaintiff, was to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Sethia Financial Services Ltd v Nicholas Chu Fai Hung & Mak Siau King (as claimant)
-
Your Response Ltd v Datateam Business Media Ltd
...or by necessary implication from other terms which are inconsistent with the exercise of a possessory lien; cf. Forth v. Simpson (1849) 13 Q.B. 680, in the same way as the common law remedy in damages for breach of contract may be excluded or modified by the terms of the contract itself. Bu......
-
Tappenden v Artus
...by necessary implication from other terms which are inconsistent with the exercise of a possessry lions ( Forth v. Simpson 1849 volume 13 Queen's Beach cases, page 380), in the same way as the common law remedy in damages for breach of contract may be excluded or modified by the terms of th......
- Dennis v Dennis