Franklin v Neate
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1844 |
| Date | 01 January 1844 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 153 E.R. 200
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 14 L. J. Ex. 59. Referred to, In re Attenborough, 1855, 11 Ex. 461.
franklin v. neate. 1844.-The pawnor of a chattel still retains his property in i^ (though qualified by the right existing in the pawnee), which he has a right to sell, and by the sale to transfer that property to the buyer; and if the pawnee, on the buyer's tendering him the amount due, refuses to deliver it up, the buyer may maintain trover to recover it. 1 [S. C. 14 L. J. Ex. 59. Referred to, In re Attenbomugh, 1855, 11 Ex. 461.]| This was an action of trover for a chronometer; to which the defendant pleaded, first not guilty ; secondly, that the plaintiff was not possessed of the chattel. At the trial, before Parke, B., at the Middlesex sittings in last Trinity Term, it appeared that the chronometer for which the action was brought had been pledged, by* a person named Gilbert, to the defendant, a pawnbroker, under a written agreement that it was deposited as a collateral security for the sum of £15, and interest; and that, in case Gilbert should not redeem it before twelve months, the defendant should be authorized to sell it, and repay himself principal and interest. The plaintiff afterwards bought the chronometer from Gilbert, whilst it waa in the defendant's hands, after the expiration of the year; he then tendered to the defendant the amount due, and demanded possession of it, and on the defendant's refusing to deliver it,; brought the present action. It was contended for the defendant, and that no property passed to the plaintiff by the sale; that it was merely an assignment of a right of action, with an equity of redemption ; and the learned Judge, being of that opinion, directed the jury to find their verdict in favour of the defendant; giving leave to the plaintiff to move to enter a verdict for him for the [482] sum of 191. 10s. Humfrey having, in the early part of this term, obtained a rule accordingly, Petersdorff shewed cause (Nov. 14). The question here is, whether the assignee 13 M. 4 W. 483. FRANKLIN V. NEATE 201 of the right of a pawnor to redeem an article pledged can maintain an action of trover against the party with whom it is pledged, he having refused to deliver it up. Now,; that depends upon the contract made between the parties. The pawnee agrees to deliver the article to the party pledging it, but he does not undertake to deliver it to his assignee. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burdick v Sewell
...38 and 661; 15 L. T. Rep. N. S. 355; 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 569; in H. of L., L. Rer. 4H.olL.317; 22 L. T. Rep. N. S.808; Franklin v. Neale, 13 M. & W. 481. Such a transaction as this is a pledge and not a' mortgage, and only passes a special property; Harris v. Birch, 9 M. &W.592; Donald v. S......
-
Maugham v Sharpe and another
...C. B. (N. S.) 456. security." 5 H. 7, pi. 1; 9 E. 4, pi. 25; 36 E. 3, Bar, 188 :" Eatdiff v. Da-vies, Cm. Jac. 244. In Franklin v. Neale, 13 M. & W. 481, it was held that the pawnor of a chattel still retains his property in it (though qualified by the right existing in the pawnee), which h......
-
Mirabita v Imperial Ottoman Bank
...2nd edit.; The notes to Coggs v. Bernard, 1 Smith's L. 0.203, 6th edit, (citing Kemp v. Westbrooke, 1 Vesey 278, and Franklin v. Neate, 13 M. & W. 481); Browne v. Hare, 8H.&N. 484; 4H. AN. 822,27 L. J.372,Ex:.s 29 L. J.6.Ex.; Wood v. Bell,5E.&B.772 6E.& B. 355; 25 L.J. 148and 321, Q.B Joyce......
-
Dame Harriet Lucy Tancred v Allgood
...been an absolute sale so as to prevent the plaintiff finding the goods again, if so, damage to the plaintiff (a) See Franklin v. Mate, 13 M. & W. 481. 4H. &N. 444. BAXENDALE 1\ BARVEY 913 is inevitable. That distinguishes this case from Owni v. Legh (3 B. & Aid. 470) The [444] fifth plea ad......