Holland v Bird and Skate
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 May 1833 |
| Date | 25 May 1833 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 131 E.R. 810
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
S. C. 3 Moo. & Sc. 363; 2 L. J. C. P. 201.
holland v. bird and skate. May 25, 1833. [S. C..3 Moo. & Sc. 363; 2 L. J. C. P. 201.] Case lies, as well as trespass, for an excessive distress after tender of the rent due. Case for an excessive distress for rent. The second count of the declaration, was as follows:-"And whereas also the Defendants took, seized, and distrained divers goods and chattels of the Plaintiff, to wit, &e., as, and for, and in the name of a distress for certain rent, to wit the sum of 31. 6s., then due and in arrear from the Plaintiff to the said Bird, for, and in respect of, certain apartments with the appurtenances, in, and parcel of, a certain dwelling-house, with the appurtenances, situate, &c. before then held and occupied by the Plaintiff, as tenant thereof to the said Bird: and, thereupon, afterwards, and whilst the Defendants had the said goods and chattels, under such distress as aforesaid, to wit, on, &c. at, &c. the Plaintiff tendered and offered to the Defendants, in satisfaction and discharge of the said last mentioned arrears of rent, and of the costs and charges of the said last mentioned distress, a certain large sum of money, to wit, the sum of 61., the same being then and there a sufficient and proper sum to satisfy and discharge the said arrears of rent, together with all the costs [16} and charges of the said last mentioned distress; and then and there requested the Defendants to re-deliver and restore the said last mentioned goods and chattels to the Plaintiff; and although the Defendants then and there ought to have accepted and received the said sum of money from the Plaintiff, in discharge of such arrears of rent, and costs and charges of the said distress, and to have re-delivered and restored the said goods and chattels to the Plaintiff, nevertheless the Defendants contriving, and wrongfully and injuriously intending to harass, oppress, and aggrieve the Plaintiff in that behalf, did not nor w^uld, whe.n they were so requested as aforesaid, or at any other time since, accept or receive the said sum of money,, so tendered as aforesaid, from the Plaintiff, jn satisfaction and discharge of the said last mentioned arrears of rent, and the costs and charges of the said distress, or re-deliver or restore the said goods and chattels, or any of them, or any part thereof, to the Plaintiff but then and there wholly^eglected...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ladd against Thomas and Little
...Blanc and Bayley Js. were of opinion that mere continuance after the time allowed by law made the party a trespasser. In Hollaiid v. Bird (10 Bing. 15), it was not denied that trespass lay against a clistrainor for detaining and converting after tender of the arrears ; it was made a questio......
-
Nargett against Nias
...the party aggrieved may, if he please, waive the trespass and sue in case. See Branscomb v. Bridges (1 B. & C. 145), Holland v. Bird (10 Bing. 15). The view that we have taken, that the wrongful seizure of toots of trade is the subject matter of an action of trespass, is further confirmed b......
-
Lear against Caldecott
...owe would lie in the more general form, as well as in [126] the qualified one of trover; Branscomb v. Bridges (a)2. In Holland v. Bird (10 Bing. 15), which was an action on the case for wrongfully keeping a distress after tender of rent and charges, Tindal C.J. said : "If trover will lie, w......
-
Weeton and Others v Woodcock and Others
...Abr. Actions, K. (c.), pi. 3) goes even further than the present case .on this point. The language of Tindal, C. J., in Holkmd v. Bird (10 Bing. 15, 3 M, & Scott, .363), is general, and applies to land as well as chattels. He says, "Although a, wrongful taking may be a ground of trespass, t......