Green and Another v Farmer and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 May 1768 |
| Date | 06 May 1768 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 98 E.R. 154
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Explained, Turner v. Thomas, 17871, L. R. 6 C. P. 613. Followed, In re Witt, 1876, 2 Ch. D. 491.
tiers. inhabitants of st. lawrence, in winchester. Wednesday, 4th May 1768. See this case in the quarto edition of my Settlement-Cases, No. 190, p. 588. green and another versus farmer and others. (S. C. 1 Bl. 651.) Friday 6th May 1768. No lien on goods except for the price of working them up. [Explained, Timer v. Thomas, 1871, L. R 6 C. P. 613. Followed, In re Witt, 1876, -2 Ch. D. 491.] This was a case reserved for the opinion of the Court, at a trial at Nisi Prius at Guildhall before Lord Mansfield, at the sittings after Trinity term 1767. It was an action of trover for several parcels of serges and rackerg. " Not guilty " was pleaded ; issue joined ; the cause tried ; and a case stated. It was argued first on Tuesday 17th November last, by Mr. Mansfield, for the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Wallace, for the defendants ; and the parties desired a second argument. In pursuance of which desire, it came on again [2215] on Tuesday 26th January last ; when, upon some explanations of the facts, it being thought that they were not quite completely stated, the Court desired to be further informed of the course of these dealings, as it is a question of general consequence. And the counsel agreed to amend the case ; which they afterwards did. The case, when amended, stated the following facts. It appeared in evidence that * V. ante, p. 1980, Sir Tho. Sewell's case, accord. 4 BURR, ant GREEN V. FARMER 155 Messieurs Heinzleman purchased from the plaintiffs the goods in question, by the intervention of their packer : and they were delivered to the defendants, their dyers, to be dyed upon their account, on 12th July 1766. That, afterwards, Messieurs Heinzleman and the plaintiffs agreed " that the plaintiffs should have their goods back again :" who demanded them from the defendants, offering to pay what was due for the dying. But the defendants insisted upon being paid a debt due from Messieurs Heinzleman for dying other goods, over and above what they owed for the dying of these goods. That the occasion of Messieurs Heinzleman's agreeing " that the plaintiffs should have their goods again," was their having failed in their circumstances. And it was proved "that after notice of this failure, the defendants delivered eleven pieces to Messieurs Aston and Hodgson, which had been bought of them by the packer of Messieurs Heinzleman, on their account, and sent in like manner, to the defendants to be dyed on their account; without insisting upon being paid more than what was due for dying these eleven pieces ; " and " that they also delivered to the plaintiffs five pieces in white, without being paid any thing." It wag further stated, that the goods, for the charge of dying whereof the defendants claim to retain the goods now in question, had been sent into them, dyed, and returned, at the severaJ times specified in their account. And it appeared from that account, that all the goods, for the dying whereof the defendants now insist upon being paid before they will part with this last parcel of serges and rackers, were returned without retaining or having any other goods; and that the demand for dying those former goods arose from the 1st of January 1766 to the 10th of June 1766, and before the 12th of July 1766. It appeared also, that there were several periods, during which the defendants had no goods in their hands. A verdict was found for the plaintiffs, for 571. and 40s, costs; subject to the opinion of this Court upon the fol-[2216]-lowing question- " Whether, under the circumstances of this case, the defendants have a lien upon these goods, for more than the price of the dying." [The same goods.] On Tuesday last, (the 3d instant), this amended case, was argued by Mr. Dunning, Solicitor-General, for the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Eyre, Recorder of London, for the defendants. Mr. Solicitor-General argued that the defendants had no such lien, nor any right to retain these goods, for more than the price of dying them. The right to retain depends upon a contract, either express or implied. A taylor loses his right to retain, if he stipulates for a particular price. 2 Ro. Abr. p. 92, title "Justification," pi. 1, &...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henriksens Rederi A/S v T. H. Z. Rolimpex (Brede)
...been regarded by the common law as the debt, so that no question of set-off arises". 19 For this proposition they cite Lord Mansfield in Green v. Farmer (1768) 4 Burrow at page 2221, when he said (at page 2221): "Where the nature of the employment, transaction or dealings, necessarily const......
-
Toll Logistics (Nz) Ltd v Andrew John McKay and John Joseph Cregten Coa
...1 Atk 228, 26 ER 146 (Ch). 16 Ex parte Ockenden (1754) 1 Atk 235, 26 ER 151. 17 Green v Farmer (1746–1779) 1 Black W 651, 96 ER 379; (1768) 4 Burr 2214, 98 ER 154 18 At 654. 19 1 Black W at 654. 20 At 653. 21 At 2222 and 159. 22 Kruger v Wilcox (1755) Amb 252, 27 ER 168 (Ch). 23 Savill v Ba......
- The "Don Francisco"