Fouldes v Willouchdy
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1841 |
| Year | 1841 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 151 E.R. 1153
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 1 Dowl (N. S.) 86; 10 L. J. Ex. 364; 5 Jur. 534. Considered, Fowler v. Hollins, 1872, L. R. 7 Q. B. 629, affirmed, Hollins v. Fowler, L. R. 7 H. L. 757. See also, England v. Cowley, 1873, L. R. 8 Ex. 132.
8M.&W.MO. FOULDES V. WILLOUOHBY 1153 /p3 [540] pouldes i: Wrr.LOUGHBY. Exch. of Pleas. June 1, 184!.-Trover for two horses. It appeared at the trial that the defendant was the manager of a ferry from B. to L., and that the plaintiff embarked on board the defendant's ferryboat at B., having with him the horses in question, for the carriage of which he had paid the usual fare. When the defendant came on board, it having been suggested that the plaintiff had behaved improperly on board, he the defendant told the plaintiff he would not carry the horses over the water, and that he must take them on shore. The plaintiff refused to do this, and the defendant took them from the plaintiff' and put them on shore, and they were conveyed to an hotel kept by the defendant's brother. The plaintiff remained on board and was conveyed over the water. On the following day the plaintiff sent for the horses, but they were not delivered up; a message whs however afterwards sent to the plaintiff, that he might have the horses on sending for them and paying for their keep, but that if he did not send for them, they would be sold to pay the expenses. The latter was accordingly done, and this action was brought. The defence set up was, that the plaintiff having misconducted himself on board, the horses were put on shore in order to get rid of the plaintiff by inducing him to follow them. -The learned Judge, in summing up, told the jury that the defendant, by taking the horses from the plaintiff and turning them out of the vessel, had been guilty of a conversion, unless they thought the plaintiff's conduct justified his removal from the steam-boat, and he had refused to go without his horses :-Held, that this amounted to a misdirection, as a mere wrongful asportation of a chattel does not amount to a conversion, unless the taking or detention of the chattel is with intent to convert it to the taker's own use, or that of some third person, or unless the act done has the effect either of destroying or changing the quality of the chattel. [S. C. 1 Dowl. (N. S.) 8fi ; 10 L. J. Ex. 304 ; 5 Jur. 534. Considered, Fowler v. Hollins, 1872, L. E. 7 Q. B. 629, affirmed, Hollins v. Finder, L. R. 1 H. L. 757. See also, England v. Oowley, 1873, L. K. 8 Ex. 132.] ' Trover for divers, to wit, two horses. Plea, not guilty. The cause was tried b* fore Maule:, J,, at the last Spring Assizes for Liverpool, when it appeared that the ,i fendaut was the occupier or manager of a ferry by means of steam-boats over the S ver Mersey, from Birkenhead to Liverpool, and that on the 15th of October 1840, the plaintiff had embarked on board the defendant's ferry-boat at Birkenhead, having with him two horses, for the carriage of which he had paid the usual fare. It was alleged that the plaintiff misconducted himself and behaved improperly after he came on board the steam-boat, and when the defendant came on hoard he told the plaintiff that he would not carry the horses over, and that he must take them on shore. The plaintiff refused to do so, and the defendant took the horses from the plaintiff, who was holding one of them by the bridle, and put them on shore on the landing slip. They were driven to the top of the slip, which was separated by gates from the high road, and turned loose on the road. They were shortly afterwards seen in the stables of an hotel at Birkenhead, kept by the defendant's brother. The plaintiff remained on board the steam-boat, and was conveyed over the river to Liverpool. On the following day the plaintiff sent to the hotel [541] for the horses, but the parties ia whose possession they were refused to deliver them up. A message, however, was afterwards sont to him by the hotel-keeper, to the effect that he might have the horses on sending for them and paying for their keep; and that if he did not send for them and pay for their keep, they would be sold to pay the expense of it. The plaintiff then brought the present action. The horses were subsequently sold by auction. The defence set up at the trial was, that the plaintiff had misconducted himself and behaved improperly on board, and that the horses were sent on shore iu order to get rid of the plaintiff, by inducing him to follow them. The learned Judge told the jury, that the defendant by biking the horses from the plaintiff and turning them oat of the vessel, had been guilty of a conversion, unless they thought the plaintiff's conduct had justified his removal from the steam-boat, and he had refused to go without his horses ; and that if they thought the conversion was proved, they might give the plaintiff'damages for the full value of the horsex. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff with 40 damages, the value of the horses. Ex. Div. vn.-37 1154 FOULDES V. WILLOUGHBY 8 M. &W. S42. lu Easter Terra last, a rule was obtained calling upon the plaintiff to shew cause why the verdict should not be set aside on the ground of misdirection, both as to the proof of a conversion, and also as to the amount of the damages: against which rule W. H. Watson and Atherton now...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Tay Kiang Heong lwn Pendakwa Raya
-
Club Cruise Entertainment & Travelling Services Europe v Department of Transport (The Van Gogh)
...to Liverpool ferry was guilty of conversion if he intended to exercise dominion over them, but not otherwise: see Fouldes v Willoughby (1841) 8 M & W 540. 42 Similarly, mere unauthorised retention of another's goods is not conversion of them. Mere possession of another's goods without title......
-
White v Withers LLP
...[2004] 2 AC 457, [2004] 2 WLR 1232. Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374, [1984] 1 WLR 1172. Fouldes v Willoughby (1841) 8 M & W 540, 151 ER 1153. Hartley v Moxham (1842) 3 QB 701. Hildebrand v Hildebrand [1992] 1 FLR 244. IRC v Rossminster Ltd [1980] 1 All ER 80, [1980] AC 952, [1980] 2 W......
-
Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company (Nos 4 & 5)
... ... horses off the Birkenhead to Liverpool ferry was guilty of conversion if he intended to exercise dominion over them, but not otherwise: see Fouldes v Willoughby (1841) 8 M & W 540 ... 42 Similarly, mere unauthorised retention of another's goods is not conversion of them. Mere ... ...
-
Change of position and restitution for wrongs: 'ne'er the twain shall meet'?
...W V H Rogers (ed), Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort (17th ed, 2006) 752-3. (131) See, eg, Fouldes v Willoughby (1841) 8 M & W 540, 547; 151 ER 1153, 1156 (Lord Abinger (132) See M'Combie v Davies 0805) 7 East 5, 6; 103 ER 3, 4 (Lord Ellenborough CJ); Hollins v Fowler (1875) LR 7 HL 757, 76......
-
Table of cases
...52–53 Table of Cases 505 Forrest v Ontario (Provincial Police), 2012 ONSC 429 (Div Ct) .......................280 Fouldes v Willoughby (1841), 8 M & W 540, 151 ER 1153 (Ex Ct) ............ 329–30 Frame v Smith, [1987] 2 SCR 99, 42 DLR (4th) 81 .................................... 284, 481 F......
-
Table of cases
...51, 52, 53 Forrest v. Ontario (Provincial Police), 2012 ONSC 429 (Div. Ct.) .................... 277 Fouldes v. Willoughby (1841), 8 M. & W. 540, 151 E.R. 1153 (Ex. Ct.) ................................................................................ 326 Frame v. Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99, ......
-
Table of Cases
...[1998] 1 S.C.R. 424, [1998] 7 W.W.R. 25 .......................................................50, 51, 52 Fouldes v. Willoughby (1841), 8 M. & W. 540, 151 E.R. 1153 (Ex. Ct.) ............ 310 Frame v. Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99, 42 D.L.R. (4th) 81 ...............................267, 456 Fras......