Garret against Taylor

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1791
Date01 January 1791
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 79 E.R. 485

IN THE KING'S BENCH.

Garret against Taylor

Referred to, Mogul S. S. Co. v. M'Gregor, 1889-1892, 23 Q. B. D. 614; [1892], A. C. 25.

case 4. garret against taylor. [Referred to, MogulS. S. Co. v. M'Gregor, 1889-1892, 23 Q. B. D. 614 ; [1892], A. C. 25.] An action for misfeasance will lie for threatening the workmen or customers of another, so that he thereby loses profit. 2 Eoll. Eep. 162. Danv. Ab. 201. 1 Bac. Ab. 53, 54. Action on the case. Whereas he was a free...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Rookes v Barnard
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 21 January 1964
    ...be explained on the ground of nuisance, or some other recognized tort, but some cannot, and I think that, of these. ( Garret v. Taylor Cro. Jac. 567) and, more particularly, Tarleton v. M'Gawley (1 Peake 270) cannot be so explained, and I agree with your Lordships that the existence of thi......
  • OBG Ltd and another v Allan and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 2 May 2007
    ...do so…" Causing loss by unlawful means 6 The tort of causing loss by unlawful means has a different history. It starts with cases like Garret v Taylor (1620) Cro Jac 567, in which the defendant was held liable because he drove away customers of Headington Quarry by threatening them with may......
  • Northern Territory v Mengel
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • Invalid date
  • Beaudesert Shire Council v Smith
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • Invalid date

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT