Francis v Wyatt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 June 1764 |
| Date | 29 June 1764 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 97 E.R. 947
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. I Black. 483.
Commented on, Brown v. Shevil, 1834, 2 Ad. & E. 145.
3 BURK. 1199. FRANCIS V. WYATT 947 francis versus wyatt. Friday, 29th June, 1764. [S. C. 1 Black. 483.] Carriages standing at livery may be distrained. [Commented on, Browni v. Shesil, 1834, 2 Ad. & E. 145.] This was an action in replevin, upon a distress for rent. The replevin waa brought by Mr. Francis, the owner of a chariot which stood in a coach-house belonging to and part of Mat. Wilkinson's livery stables; which chariot Mr. Wyatt, the landlord of the premises, had distrained for rent due to him from Wilkinson : and Wyatt avowed the taking of it as a distress for rent. To this avowry, Mr. Francis pleaded in bar, that the coach-house in which it was taken, was part and parcel of certain other coach-houses and stables known by the appellation of theTalbot livery-stables : whereof one Matthew Wilkinson was the tenant and occupier, under a demise from the avowant Mr. Wyatt, for a term of years, ab the annual rent of 501. that Matthew Wilkinson, during such his occupation of the premises, used and followed the trade and business of a common public livery-stable keeper, for keeping gentlemen's horses and setting up their coaches and carriages; and used the premises, in his said trade and business, for the keeping common public livery stables and coach-houses, for keeping gentlemen's horses and setting up their coaches and carriages; and that the plaintiff Mr. Francis set up his chariot there, at livery, with the said Matthew Wilkinson, as at a common public livery-stable keeper's ; and that the avowant took his chariot so standing in the said coach house, as a distress for rent due to him from the said Matthew Wilkinson : and so concludes, that he took it of his own wrong. To this plea in bar to the avowry, Mr. Wyatt the avowant demurs: and Mr. Francis joins in demurrer. And the question was, " whether a gentleman's chariot which stood in a coachhouse belonging to a common livery-stable keeper, was distrainable for rent due to the landlord from the livery-stable [1499] keeper, for this coach house, which (together with the stables, &c.) he rented of the landlord who distrained it." This point was twice argued, first, on Friday the 25th of May last, by Mr. Serjeant Nares for the landlord, and Mr. Ashhurst for the owner of the chariot; and again on Friday 29th June 1764, by Mr. Blackstone for the avowant (the landlord,) and Mr. Clayton for the plaintiff in replevin, (the owner of the chariot). Upon the first argument, the Serjeant insisted, that a livery-stable keeper differs widely from an inn-keeper ; and that even horses standing at livery in a livery-stable would not be intitled to the like privilege from being distrained for rent due for the livery stables, as a horse put up at an inn would be, from being distrained for rent due lor the inn; and much less can a chariot without horses, put up in a coachhouse belonging to and parcel of a livery-stable, be intitled to such privilege. An inn-keeper has a right to detain the horse till he be paid for his keeping. The reason...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swire v Leach
...v. She-till, 2 Ad. & E. 138, 4 N. & M. 277 ; but has not been allowed to carriages standing at livery,-Francis v. Jl'yatt, 3 Burr. 1498; nor to stocking-frames sent with materials to a weaver (though the materials themselves would be privileged),- Wood v. Clarke, 1 (J. & J. 484, 1 Tyrwh. 31......
-
Brown against Shevill
...Thus, in Adams v. Grane (1 Cr. & M. 381. S. C. 3 Tyrwh. 328), Bayley J. makes the fol-[142]-lowing remark on the case of Francis v. Wyatt (3 Burr. 1498. S. C. 1 W. Bl. 483), (in which case it was held that a carriage standing at livery was not protected) :-" If I am not mistaken, one ground......
-
Muspratt v Gregory
...distress. But we find no authority for holding that they are so In the case of fr'mncit: v. 13lfe MUSPRATT V.GREGORY 3M.&W.682. Wyatt (3 Burr. 1498), the Court thought it much for the interest of the landlords themselves that carriages standing at livery should not be subject to distress fo......
-
Lovett against Hobbs
...premises, they cannot be distrained. Gordon v. Falkner, 4 Term Rep. 565, See also Ld. Ray, 386. Co. Lit. 47 a. 3 Bl. Com. 8. 1 Burr. 588. 3 Burr. 1498. 3 Salk. 136, and 4 Term Eep. 569. (a) Common carriers are liable by the common law, or general custom of the realm; and to recite it, says ......
-
The Landlord’s Hypothec in Comparative Perspective
...Gorton v Falkn er (1792) 4 Term Reports 565 568; 100 ER 1178 1180.109 Argu ment of cou nsel in Francis v Wat t (1764) 3 Burr 1499 1500; 97 ER 947 948 cited by Dallas CJ in Gilman v Elton (1821) 3 Brod & B 75 80; 129 ER 1211 1212. 110 Bankt on Institute I 17 10.111 Lyons v Elliot (1876) 1 QB......