Hancock v Austin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 May 1863 |
| Date | 22 May 1863 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 143 E.R. 593
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 32 L. J. C. P. 252; 8 L. T. 429; 10 Jur. N. S. 77; 11 W. R. 833; 2 N. R. 243. Referred to, Selby v. Greaves, 1868, L. R. 3 C. P. 605. See Marshall v. Schofield, 1882, 52 L. J. Q. B. 60.
[634] hancock v. austin. May 22nd, 1863. [S. C. 32 L. J. C. P. 252; 8 L. T. 429 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 77 ; 11 W. R. 833 ; 2 N. R. 243. Referred to, Selby v. Greaves, 1868, L. R. 3 C. P. 605. See Marshall v. Schofield, 1882, 52 L. J. Q. B. 60.] The owner of a factory consisting of several rooms was in the habit of letting "stand ings" therein for lace-machines, himself supplying the power for working them, there being no demise of the room :-Held, that the weekly payments could not be HANCOCK V. AUSTIN 14 C. B. N. 8.) 635. ; distrained for as "rent."-An entry for the purpose of making ;i distress through I window which is fastened by means of a hasp, is not lawful. 1 This was an action for an illegal and excessive distress, with a count for the conversion of the plaintiff's goods, to wit, lace-machines. The cause was tried before Erie, C. J., at the last Summer Assizes at Derby. The facts were as follows:-The defendant was possessed of a factory consisting of several rooms in which he let " standings " for lace-machines, supplying the steam-power by which they were put in motion, and reserving to himself the right of entering the rooms for the purpose of oiling the bearings of the shafting,-portions of the same room being sometimes allotted to different persons. In one of these rooms the plaintiff had hired standing for three lace-machines, and power, for which he was to pay 12s. per week. The rent being in arrear, and the plaintiff having gone out and lacked the. door of the room where the machines were, the defendant placed a ladder to the window (which was fastened with an ordinary hasp), and his son, without breaking anything, opened the window and got into the room, when the plaintiff entered by the door and distrained the machines, and afterwards sold them. On the part of the plaintiff it was insisted that, inasmuch as there was no demise o{ the room, but merely a licence to place the machines there, the defendant was not entitled to distrain ; and, further, that the mode of entering for the purpose of distraining was unlawful. A verdict was by consent taken for the plaintiff for 1501. subject to be reduced to 401. (the sum at which the jury assessed the damages on the count in trover), if the court should: be of opinion that the defendant [635] was under the circumstances entitled to distrain, and had properly exercised his light. Hayes, Serjt., accordingly, in Michaelmas Term last, obtained a rule nisi to reduce the damages to 401., on the ground that the exclusive possession of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abdul Rahim v British and Malaya Trustees Ltd
...Excise v Pools Finance 1937 [1952] 1 All ER 775; [1952] 1 TLR 792 (refd) Facchini v Bryson [1952] 1 TLR 1386 (refd) Hancock v Austin (1863) 14 CBNS 634; 143 ER 593 (refd) Rendell v Roman (1893) 9 TLR 192 (folld) D G Ironside (Ironside & Desouza) for the plaintiffs J Tan Chor Yong (J Tan Cho......
- Re London & Winchester Properties Ltd's Appeal
-
Edmondson v Nuttall
...county-court, and on Friday the 29th of January, 1864, obtained judgment against him for 281. debt, and (a) See Hcaicgck v. Austin, 14 C. B. (N. S.) 634, where it was held that these weekly payments could not be distrained for as " rent." 114 EDMONDSON V. NUTTALL 17 C. B. (N. S.) 282, 111. ......
-
Heap and Others v Dobson
...goods to the amount of 13771. 5s., which he had obtained on credit from the plaintiffs. Pearson having (a) See Hancock v. Austen, 14 C. B. (N. S.) 634. 18 C. B. (N. S.)46L HEAP V. DOBSON 865 become bankrupt, the plaintiffs discovered that the goods were shipped as a joint adventure, and acc......