Green and Another v Baverstock
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 May 1863 |
| Date | 05 May 1863 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 143 E.R. 424
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 32 L. J. C. P. 181; 8 L. T. 360; 10 Jur. N. S. 47. Referred to, Parfitt v. Jepson, 1877, 46 L. J. C. P. 532.
424 GREEN V. BA.VERSTOCK 14 C. B. (N. S.) 20J. green and another v. baverstock. May 5th, 1863. [S. C. 3% L. J. C. P. 181; 8 L. T. 360; 10 Jur. N. S. 47. Referred to, : ParJUt v. Jepson, 1877, 46 L. J. C. P. 532.] Upon a sale of j goods by auction, where the highest bidder is to be the purchaser, the secret employment of a puffer on behalf of the vendor is a fraudulent act, and vitiates the transaction. This was an action against the defendant, a bidder at a public auction, for not clearing goods knocked down to him. The declaration stated, in substance, that the plaintiffs put up and exposed to sale by public action, in lots, divers goods, under and subject to certain conditions of sale, one of which was, that the highest bidder should be the purchaser, and another, that all lots should be cleared within a certain time; that the defendant became the purchaser of certain lots ; but that he refused to clear the same, and the plaintiffs were compelled to re-sell them at a loss. The defendant pleaded that he was induced to purchase the goods by the fraud of the plaintiffs. The cause was tried before the secondary of London. It appeared that the plaintiffs, who were auctioneers in the city of London, were employed by the owner of certain goods to sell them by auction, upon the usual terms,-amongst others, that the highest bidder should be the purchaser, and that the goods should be cleared within two days; that the defendant became the purchaser of goods to the amount of 71. 16s. 3d.; that he refused to clear them, on the ground that, since the sale, he had discovered that one Astell, a puffer employed by the owner of the goods, had bid at the sale; [205] and that the goods were afterwards put up again, and on the second sale fetched only 11. 12s. 8d. It was proved that Astell had bid for the lots which were knocked down to the defendant, and that no intimation had been given at the time of tie sale that a puffor was present to bid on the part of the owner of the gooda. Upon these facts, it was contended on the part of the defendant, on the authority of TkorneU v. Hainex, 15 M. & W. 367, that the plea of fraud was made out. The secondary, however, intimated an opinion that the employment of a puffer by the owner of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neugebauer & Co Ltd v Hermann
...highest bidder, and the defendant cannot, therefore, rely on the defence that there was no consensus ad idem. See Green v Baverstock (14 C.B.N.S., 204, 143 E.R. 424); Mainprice v Westley (6 B and S., 420 and 122 E.R., 1250); Crowder v Austin (3 Bing, 368 and 130 E.R. 555); Mortimer v Bell (......
-
Neugebauer & Co Ltd v Hermann
...highest bidder, and the defendant cannot, therefore, rely on the defence that there was no consensus ad idem. See Green v Baverstock (14 C.B.N.S., 204, 143 E.R. 424); Mainprice v Westley (6 B and S., 420 and 122 E.R., 1250); Crowder v Austin (3 Bing, 368 and 130 E.R. 555); Mortimer v Bell (......
-
Shimmin v Bellew
...SHIMMIN and BELLEW. Greene v . BaverstockENR 14 C. B. N. S. 204. Smith v. Clarke 12 Ves. 477. Mortimer v. BellELR L. R. 1 Ch. App. 10. Drought v. Jones Fl. & K. 316. Robinson v. WallENRENR 10 Beav. 61; 2 Phil. 372. Sale under the Court — Puffer — Leave to party to bid. EQUITY SERIES. 28......