Holford v Copeland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 May 1802 |
| Date | 19 May 1802 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 127 E.R. 70
Common Pleas Division
70 MACLEAN V. DOUGLASS 3 ECM & UL 129. on the wharfinger. But before fraud can be committed there must be some right. Now the wbarfloger had a mere naked authority : and any disposition made by the person who gave such an authority must put an end to it. It has been argued that the wharfinger might have extended his credit to Wilson upon the assurance of the arrival of the goods: but that is a speculation which the law does not allow ; for there can be no lien until possession. On the arrival of the goods the wharfinger is put to some trouble and expence for which he has a lien upon the proprietor of the goods : but the lien now claimed is an extension of that lien ; and if he had had former dealings with Richardson he might have set up a general lien against him. The lien whether general or special must be against the proprietor, which in the present case was the Plaintiff. Per Curiam, Rule discharged* MACLEAN V. DOUGLASS. May 19th, 1802. The Court refused to set aside upon summary application a judgment entered upon a warrant of attorney given by a feme covert. Bayley Se* moved for a rule to chew cause why the judgment in this case, which bad been entered up by virtue of a warrant of attorney given by a feme covert should not be set aside, He stated that the judgment had been entered up more than a year, but observed that as it might clearly he set aside upon a writ of error, the Court might perhaps grant relief in this stage of the proceedings in order to avoid putting the Defendant to unnecessary expence and delay. But The Court refused to grant a rule : and ORA:KRIM J. said, that he remembered a ease in which he bad moved the Court of King's Bench for leave to plead coverture in abatement, after [129] the regular time for pleading in abatement had elapsed, stating that the matter which he applied for leave to pletd would afford ground for a writ of error, and consequently that if the action were suffered to proceed, the judgment might be reversed, but the Court refused a rule to strew cause, and the judgment was afterwards reversed for error. 3 Hoe. & Pull. 220. Bayley took nothing by his motion, HouroRD V. COPELAND. May 190, 1802, The Masters in Chancery are not rateable as occupiers of their respective apartments in Southampton Buildings under the paving act 11 Geo. 3, c, 22*. Trespass for taking the Plaintiff's goods. Plea, Not guilty. The cause was tried before Lord Eldon Ch. J. at the Westminster Sittings after Hilary Term 1801, when the jury found a special verdict which stated in substance as follows. pursuance of the 32 Geo. 3, c. 42, and before the making of the rate hereinafter mentioned, a sum of money not exceeding 300,0001. belonging to the suitors of the Court of Chancery was invested in Government Securities under the direction of the said Court, and out of the interest certain sums not exceeding 30,0001. were applied in purchasing ground, and in building and completing the offices and repositories hereinafter mentioned, and in paying other expences relating to the execution of the acp. A proper piece of ground lying in Saint Andrew Holborn above the bars, with such houses and buildings as were then standing thereon, was purchased out of the said money, and by indentures of bargain and sale throned, conveyed to our sovereign Lord the King, his heirs and successors, for the purposes and in pursuance of the said act, whereby the King became seised thereof in fee in right of his crown for the purposes of the act : and out of the same money proper and convenient offices for the masters in ordinary in Chancery and their clerks, and for the secretaries of bankrupts and lunatics, and their clerks, and safe and secure repositories for the deeds, books, papers, and writings of and belonging to the suitors of the said court, delivered or to be delivered to the said masters, and the records, proceedings, deeds, books, papers, and writings, delivered or to be delivered and left in the custody of the said secretaries of bankrupts * Vide Bea; V. Terrott, 3 East, 506. Rez v. Bishop of Rochester, 12 East, 353. Netherton v, Ward, 3 It & A. 21, 3 BO P 0 V. COPELANb and lunatics rrespectively, together with a public officethe suitors of the said court, were built on the same piece of ground, and made fit for the reception of the said [130] masters and secretaries, and the transaction of their respective business therein, and for that purpose were furnished out of the same money with divers desks, writing tables, stools, chairs, and presses, fit and necessary for the transaction of such business, and for the custody and preservation of the said records, proceedings, deeds, books, papers, and writings. In the basement story of the said buildings, under the publie office and door-way thereof there are three small rooms, which, until the 21st of December 1799 were occupied and inhabited by a man (who had a wife and family residing also with him), employed to watch and take care of the said building, and of the repositories of the deeds, papers, and writings therein belonging to the public suitors of the Court of Chancery, and paid a salary for such care and trouble by the said masters in ordinary, but from the day and year last aforesaid the said person and his family wholly ceased to inhabit the said room; and the same have been ever since wholly unoccupied. The said offices and repositories form altogether but one building under one roof, and with one public and general entrance and stair-cam, and from the time of building thereof the same have been used for the purposes in the said act mentioned, and for no other purposes; and the said building, and also the ground whereon the same was erected, and also the desks, writing-tables, stools, chairs, and presses (except the wooden chair in the declaration mentioned, which was the property of the Plaintiff)) are vested in the King for the uses aforesaid, and the King is the owner and proprietor thereof. The front of the said building, abutting oil the street called Southampton-Buildings, is erected upon ground whereon two messuages, with their appurtenances, formerly stood, which messuages, with their appurtenances at the time when they were taken down were, and for some time had been rated under the act of Parliament hereafter mentioned at 31. 8s. 9d. The Plaintiff after the time king the rate hereinafter mentioned, and thenceforth until and a the time when, was one of the masters in ordinary in Chancery duly appointed, and as such, like other masters, transacted the business of his office in one separate and distinct set of offices, consisting of three rooms in the said building, whereof one was used by himself, other by his senior clerk, and the third by the clerks or writers under such senior clerk. The Plaintiff did not, nor did his clerk or writers, at any time occupy the said ices, or dwell or inhabit therein otherwise than as hereinafter mentioned, that is to say, (1313 that the Plaintiff did with his clerks and writers attend at his said office during the usual office hours, for the purpose of transacting the public business of his said office and no other, and that the suitors of the said Court with their counsel and solicitors, had always during those hours free access to the said office, for the purpose of prosecuting and defending there their suits and causes pending in the said court of Chancery, and that the Plaintiff, and the other masters did in turn attend at the said public office in the day-time during the usual office hours, for the purpose of transacting there the public business of the said Court, by administering oaths and taking acknowledgments of deeds re/sting to causes pending in the same Court, according to the course and practice of the same Court, and for no other purpose, and that on the expiration of such office hours the Plaintiff and his clerk and writers left the said separate offices and public office, and locked up the same, and did not return thither until the return of such office hours as aforesaid, and the Plaintiff and his clerk and writers respectively have always had their several dwelling-houses or places where they and their families have respectively inhabited apart and at a distance from the said building, and neither the Plaintiff nor his clerk or writers, nor any person whatsoever, at the time of making the said rate, or from thence until or at the time when, &o. kept in the said offices or building, or in any manner inhabited, held, occupied and enjoyed the same or any part thereof, except in the execution of his said office, and according to the direction of the said act, and no other person had occupied any part of the said building except at the time...
To continue reading
Request your trial