Goodwin against Lordon
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 May 1834 |
| Date | 08 May 1834 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 1251
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 3 N. & M. 879; 2 D. P. C. 504. Distinguished, Gilpin v. Cohen, 1869, L. R. 4 Ex. 140
[378] GOODWIN against lordon. Thursday, May 8th, 1834. A defendant who has been in custody on a charge of felony, and is acquitted and discharged, is not privileged from arrest on his return home; and the Court will not relieve him from such arrest, if it does not appear that his apprehension on the criminal charge was a contrivance to get him into custody on the civil suit. [S. C. 3 N. & M. 879; 2 D. P. C. 504. Distinguished, GUpin v. Cohen, 1869, L. R. 4 Ex. 140.] Dunbar moved (May 7th) (a)2, that the defendant might be discharged out of the till payment be made of such tolls, and of all arrears of the same, due from the owner. These words would be absurd if they were not construed to mean, that the carriage, which had carried goods at any previous time, should be liable to be distrained and detained for all tolls remaining due on such goods. [Parke J. What objection is there to construing the intention of the Act to be, that the carriage should be made liable during each trip, as well as the goods, for tolls payable upon the goods for that particular trip; and that there should also be, after seizure, a general lien for arrears dvte from the owner of the articles upon which the tolls, so seized for, are payable 1 Patteson J. When the trams were seized, they were not in the use of the two sons, but lent to another person; and you distrained them, not for what they were actually carrying, but for arrears due from the two sons. Now you may distrain for tolls, and keep for arrears; but you cannot distrain for arrears.] Secondly, as to the limitation clause. The time must be reckoned from the seizure, the sale, or some intermediate period. The seizure would be too far back; and, unless some period can be shewn at which the reversionary interest came into possession, the situation of the plaintiff was not altered after the seizure, and therefore his injury must be dated from the seizure, especially as the seizure and the sale are connected together in the declaration as a single transaction. ,[Parke J. The plaintiff will say, you ought to have sold no more than the interest of the lessees; the injury, therefore, dates from the sale of the whole property, which is always supposed to be injurious to the reversion, as if a sheriff sell more than the tenant's interest.] The Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Captain Douglas
...to point out that a discharge from criminal process gives, in general, no protection redeuudo from any other process; Goodwin v. Lardon (1 A, & E. 378), Anonymous case (1 Dowl. P. C. 157), in Dowling's Practical Cases. Kelly in reply. The general law ia not in dispute: but here the prosecut......
-
Collins against Yewens
...823), Barratt v. Price (9 Bing. 566), the case oi The Marshalsea (10 Kep. 68 b.), Drake v. Sykes (7 T. R. 113), and Goodwin v. Lordon (1 A. & E. 378). [571] Sir F. Pollock and Humfrey, contra, referred to Spence v. Stuart (3 East, 89), Barclay v. Faber (2 B. & Aid. 743), Ease v. Tomblinson ......
-
Hare against Hyde
...Coleridge J. and Wightman J. concurred. Rule discharged (a)3. (a)1 Lord Campbell C.J., Patteson, Coleridge, and Wightman Js. (c) 1 A. & E. 378. See also In the Matter of Douglas, 3 Q. B. 825. (a)3 Alcock & Napier's Reports, K. B. Ireland, 125. (a)8 Reported by C. Blackburn, Esq. English Re......
-
Mountague v Harrison
...that his complaint is vexatious, this court will not allow the privilege of protecting him returning." In [295] Goodwin v. Lordon, 1 Ad. & E. 378, 3 N, & M. 879, 2 Dowl. P. C. 504, a defendant who had been in custody on a charge of felony, and was acquitted and discharged, was held not to b......