Hunt v Maniere

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date08 December 1864
Date08 December 1864
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 55 E.R. 594



Affirmed, 34 L. J. Ch. 142; 11 L. T. 723; 11 Jur. (N. S.) 28; 13 W. E. 363; 5N. E. 181.

[157] hunt v. manieke. Dec. 8, 1864. [Affirmed, 34 L. J. Ch. 142; 11 L. T. 723; 11 Jur. (N. S.) 28; 13 W. E. 363; 5N. E. 181.] Spurious champagne, having a counterfeit brand, was deposited with wharfingers, who, having notice of the fraud and that an injunction was about to be applied for, refused to deliver it over to the holder of the dock warrants. The Court, upon bill filed, restrained an action for damages for the non-delivery, commenced by the holder of warrants against the wharfingers. The Plaintiffs, Messrs. Hunt, were London wharfingers. In the year 1862 some cases of champagne, branded as the produce of Veuve, Cliquot, Ponsardiu & Co., were warehoused at their wharf on dock warrants made out in the name of Bernard. The wine was in fact spurious, and branded with the counterfeit mark of the firm of Veuve, Cliquot, Pousardin & Co., and who, having discovered the fraud, gave notice of that fact to the Plaintiffs on the 6th February 1863. They also stated that the wine was about to be sold, and that they would apply for an injunction on the next day to prevent the sale, and they requested the Plain-[158]-tiffs to detain the wine until the injunction should have been obtained. The bill was accordingly filed by . HUNT V. MANIERE 595 Ponsardin (Pdnswdin v. Slear) on the 13th of February 1863, tha only Defendants being. Stear and the Plaintiffs. About 3 o'clock on the same day Maniere, who was; the indorsee of the dock warrants, demanded the wine of the wharfingers, but they refused to deliver it. An injunction was granted on the same day to restrain the Plaintiffs from parting with the wine, and notice of which was given to the Plaintiffs on the same day, but after they had refused to deliver it to Maniere. The writ of injunction wag served on the Plaintiffs subsequently. By arrangements, in the suit of Ponsardin v. Stear, the wine was sold as in Ponsardin v. Peto (33 Beav. 642), the counterfeit brand having .been removed. Maniere, insisting that the Plaintiffs were not justified in refusing to deliver up the wine to him the indorsee of the dock warrants, brought an action against the Plaintiffs in June 1864, to recover damages for the wrongful conversion of the wine. This action had proceeded to notice of trial. On the 25th of November 1864 tbe Plaintiffs instituted this suit against Maniere to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Norwich Pharmacal Company v Commissioners of Customs and Excise
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 25 d2 Julho d2 1972
    ...against him. In support of this proposition Mr. Walton quotes cases of trade marks or passing off, and in particular Eunt v. Maniere (1864) 34 Beavan 157: Upmann v. Elkan (1871) L.R. 12 Eq. L40; Orr v. Diaper (1876) 4 Ch. D. 92, but much more fully and better reported in 25 W.R. 23. Those ......
  • Norwich Pharmacal Company v Commissioners of Customs and Excise
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 26 d2 Junho d2 1973
    ...of time it may be regarded as furnishing a precedent for a course that justice would seem to demand. 39We were referred to the cases of Hunt v. Maniere (1864) 34 Beav. 157, Upmann v. Elkan (1871) L.R. 12 Eq. 140 and Upmann v. Forester (1883) 24 Ch.D. 231. But the position of the Commissione......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT