Freeman v Cooke
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 July 1848 |
| Date | 01 July 1848 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 154 E.R. 652
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
[654] freeman and another, Assignees of William Btoarlbent v - /7_ July 11, 1848 -In trover by the assignees of a bankrupt against a sheriff, for .3/4. the conversion of the bankrupt's goods, seized under a h fa against C arid D, 9.it appeared, that, immediately before the seizure, the bankrupt told the officer *~vT. I3SP, that the goods were the property of C , and, immediately afterwards, he contia-dieted that statement, and said they were the goods of D The jury found, that the goods were in reality the bankrupt's , but also, that he lepresented the goorlh to the officer as the goods of C , so as to induce the otticei, by that false repte-sentation, to seize them -Held, that, under the plea of not possessed, this finding did not estop the bankiupt, and the plaintiffs as assignees, fiom complaining of the seizure of the goods as their own-The rule laid clown by the Court of Queen's Bench, that, "where one, by his words or conduct, wilfully causes another to believe in the existence of a certain state of things, arid induces him to act on that belief, or to alter his own previous position, the former is (concluded from averring against the latter a different state of things as existing iat the same time;" and, again, "a party who negligently 01 culpably stands by, 2 EX. 968. FREEMAN V. COOKE 653 and allows another to contract on the faith of a fact which he can contradict, cannot afterwards dispute that fact in an action against the party whom he has himself assisted in deceiving," is to be taken with this explanation, that, by the term " wilfully," must be understood, if not that the party represents that to be true which he knows to be untrue, at least, that he means his representation to be acted upon, and that it is acted upon accordingly ; and if, whatever a man's real meaning may be, he so conducts himself that a reasonable man would take the representation to be true, and believe that it was meant that he should act upon it, and did act upon it as true, the party making the representation would be equally precluded from contesting its truth; and that conduct, by negligence or omission, when there is a duty cast upon a person, by usage of trade or otherwise, to disclose the truth, may often have the same effect. [S. C. 6 D. & L. 187; 18 L. J. 114; 12 Jur. Ex. 777. Discussed, Howard v. Hudson, 1853, 2 El. & Bl. I ; Jordan v. Money, 1854, 5 H. L. Gas. 185 ; Simpson v. Accidental Death insurance Company, 1857, 2 C. B. (N. S.) 257 ; Clarke v. Hart, 1858, 6 H. L. Cas. 633. Not applied, Swan v. North .British Australasian Company, 1863, 2 H. & C. 175. Applied, In re Bahia and San Francisco Railway, 1868, L. R. 3 Q. B. 584. Dictum approved, M'Kenzie v. British Linen Company, 1881, (i A. C. 82. Approved, Miles v. M'llwaith, 1883, 8 A. C. 120; Citizens' Bank of Louisiana v. First National Bank of New Orleans, 1873, L. E. 6 H. L. 352. Referred to in numerous cases; see in particular Scarfe v. Jardine, 1882, 7 A. C. 357 ; Hank of England v. Fayliano, [1891] A. C. 107; HaMa Consolidated Company v. Tomkinson, [1893] A. C. 396; Palmes' v. Moore, [1900] A. C. 293 ; Moriaon v. London County and Westminster Bank Limited, [1914] 3 K. B. 358.] Trover by the pliiintiffs, as assignees of William Broadbent, for the conversion of certain goods of the bankrupts before the bankruptcy. The defendants pleaded not guilty, not possessed, and leave and license. The plaintiffs joined issue upon the two lirst pleas, and traversed the last, upon which traverse issue was joined. At the trial, before Alderson, B., at the last Liverpool Spring Assizes, it appeared that the defendant was the sheriff of Yorkshire, arid that his officers had seized the goods in question, under a writ of fi. fa., 'igainst Joseph and Benjamin Broadbent; that William Broad-bent, in anticipation of a distress, had removed the goods, (which there was evidence to shew were his,) to the house of his father Joseph, arid afterwards to the house of his brother Benjamin ; that, when the officers entered Benjamin's house, the bankrupt told them they were the goods of his brother Benjamin, (supposing, as it would seem, that the writ was against himself). The writ, being produced, was against Benjamin. William then told the officers that the goods belonged to another brother, and, finally, that they were his [655] own. The goods were then seized, and sold as those of Benjamin. It was contended, by the defendant's counsel, that the statements and -conduct of the bankrupt operated as conclusive evidence against him ; that the property was not his at the time of the conversion, and that the assignees were also bound. The jury found, that the goods were, in fact, William's, and also, "that William represented the goods to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hudgell Yeates & Company v Watson
...(here the holding out), but also that the person seeking to assert an estoppel has acted on the faith of the representation; Freeman v. Cooke (1848) 2- Exchequer 654. This requirement is stressed by Lord Blackburn in his speech in Scarf v. Jardine (1882) 7 Appeal Cases 345, at page 357, whe......
- American Life Insurance Company v Sumintra
-
Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada,
...[1947] K.B. 130; Owen Sound Public Library Board v. Mial Developments Ltd. (1979), 26 O.R. (2d) 459; Freeman v. Cooke (1848), 2 Ex. 654, 154 E.R. 652; Birmingham and District Land Co. v. London and North Western Railway Co. (1888), 40 Ch. D. 268; Charles Rickards Ld. v. Oppenheim, [1950] 1 ......
-
Cadbury Schweppes Plc and another v Halifax Share Dealing Ltd and another
...a forgery. That brings the case within the principle of the decision in Pickard -v- Sears [6 AD & E 469] as explained by the case of Freeman -v- Cooke [2 Ex 654] that if you make a representation with the intention that it shall be acted upon by another, and he does so, you are estopped fro......
-
The ghost of Mike Musonda Kabwe v BP Zambia and unilateral variations of contract in Zambia
...K Musa,24 and Charles Nyambe & 82 Others v Buks Haulege,25 the Supreme Court 20 Hoc hester v De La Tour (1853) 118 ER 922 (QB).21 (1848) 2 Ex 654.22 SCZ Appeal 115 of 1996.23 SCZ Judgment 9 of 2002.24 SCZ Appeal 164/201425 SCZ Appeal 202/2014. © Juta and Company (Pty) 142 JOURNAL OF COMPARA......