Gillard v Brittan and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 June 1841 |
| Date | 04 June 1841 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 151 E.R. 1168
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 1 Dowl. (N. S.) 424; 11 L. J. Ex. 133. Questioned, Johnson v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, 1878, 3 C. P. D. 506.
gillard v. brittan and others. Exch. of Pleas. June 4, 1841.-Where the seller of goods, which have not been paid for according to the contract, retakes them from the buyer without his consent, although under circumstances inducing a suspicion of fraud in the buyer, such retaking would be no answer to an action by the seller for the price. Therefore, in an action of trespass by the buyer against the seller, for so taking the goods, the plaintiff is entitled to recover their full value, and the jury cannot, in estimating the damages, take into consideration the debt due to the defendant, nor treat it as being diminished pro tarito by the value of the goods retaken. [S. C. 1 Dowl, (N. S.) 4:24; 11 L. J. Ex. 133. Questioned, Johnson v. Lanmshire und Yorkshire Railway, 1878, 3 C. P. D. 506.] Trespass de bonis asportatis. Plea, payment into Court of 10, and no damages ultra. Replication, damages ultra. At the trial before Wightrnan, J., at the last Somersetshire Assizes, the facts appeared to be as follows:-The defendant Brittan is a woollen draper in the [576] city of Bristol, and the plaintiff', until the month of January, 1841, carried on the business of a tailor in the same city, and had purchased goods of Mr. Brittan, to whom, in December, 1840, after various payments made on account, he was indebted in a balance of .67, in part payment of which he gave his acceptance for 30, and was to provide for the remainder by weekly payments. On Sunday the 10th of January, however, the plaintiff', having first disposed of his furniture to a broker, left Bristol secretly, taking with him all his other effects. The defendant, after some difficulty, traced him to a place called Bradwick, near Collumpton, in Devonshire, where he had a brother-in-law living of the name of Rowland, and on the .'ilst of January, Mr. Brittan, accompanied by the other defendants, who were police officers, went to Rowland's house, and there, and in the adjoining house, found a quantity of ready-made clothes, which had been brought by the plaintiff, and the greater part of which Brittan was able to identify as having been made from the materials furnished from his shop; all these the defendants took away, amounting in value, according to the lowest estimate made by the plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keen v Prirst
...on the count in trover. In trover the damages are the value of the goods seized Finch v. Blount (7 C. & P. 478), Gillard v. Brittan (8 M. & W. 575), M'Leod v. M'Ghw (2 M & G. 326). It will be alleged that the defendant might [240] have distrained the colts and cattle, and that if he had don......
-
Edmondson v Nuttall
...There is a case where this doctrine was attempted to be carried to a very great length. I allude to the case of Gillard v. Brittan, 8 M. & W. 575. There, the seller of goods which had not been paid for, re-tobk them by violence from the buyer, and, in an action brought against him by the bu......
-
Lee v Cooke
...stack no longer remained in the possession of the auctioneer, and the purchaser is now liable for the price of it In Gillatd v. Bnttani (8 M & W 575) it was held that the seller of goods was entitled to maintain an action for the price of them though he afterwards wrongfully retook them. [M......
-
Steele v Low and Another
...of the damages to that amount, to which both parties acceded This point, however, was not argued ; and though m Ghllard v. Bates, 8 M & W. 575. it was held, that in an action for a debt for goods sold, the defendant could not plead a re-taking of the goods by the plaintiff, that was a mere ......