Illidge v Goodwin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 December 1831 |
| Date | 22 December 1831 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 172 E.R. 934
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
Adopted, Engelhart v Farrant, [1897] 1 Q B. 240. Considered, powell v M'Glynn, [1902] 2 I R 154, Weld-Blundell v Stephens, [1920] A C. 956 Referred to, Clark v. Chambers, 1878, 3 Q. B D 327; Lantham v R Johnson & Nephew, Ltd, [1913] 1 K. B. 398; Kuoff v. Long & Co, [1916] 1 K B 148; Gayler & Poper, Ltd. v B. Davies & Son, Ltd, [1924] 2 K. B. 75
[19Q] Dec 22nd, 1831 illidge v goodwin. (If a horse and cart are left standing in the street, without any person to watch them, the owner is liable for any damage done by them, though it be occasioned by the act of a passer-by, in striking the horse ) [Adapted, Engdhart v Farrant, [1897] 1 Q B. 240. Considered, Powell v M'Glynn, [1902] 2 I E 154 , Weld-Blundell v Stephens, [1920J A C. 956 Referred to, Clark v. Chambers, 1878, 3 Q. B D 327 ; Latham v R Johnson & Nephew, Ltd , [1913] 1 K. B. 398 ; Kuoffv. Long & Co , [1916] 1 K B 148 ; Gayler & Pope, Ltd. v B. Dames & Son, Ltd , [1924] 2 K. B. 75 ] The declaration stated, that the plaintiff was possessed of certain goods and porcelain, in a certain shop window ; and that the defendant was possessed of a cart and horse, which, through the negligence of his servant, was backed against the window, ami broke the china ; whereby the plaintiff was put to expense, &c It appeared, from the evidence of the plaintiff's shopman, that the plaintiff was a china-man in St. Paul's Church Yard, and that, between eight and nine in the morning of a day in June, a scavenger's cart, with the name of Joseph Goodwin upon it, backed against the window of the plaintiff's shop, and broke a quantity of china ; and that the carman was not there at the time, but came up very soon after. It was then proposed to give in evidence certain statements made by Joseph Goodwin, sen. Spankie, Serjt., objected to the evidence, and stated that he was in a situation to shew, that Goodwin, sen. was not the person against whom the action was brought, but lus son, Joseph Goodwin the younger. Tindal, C J. - Somebody has appeared under the name of Goodwin It is only evidence against that person. They must take out execution against that person ; and, if they take it out against a wrong pefson, he may bring an action of trespass. If you shew that the person making the admission is not the owner of the cart, that will be important. 5CAB.&P. IJtt. ILLIDGE V. GOODWIN 935 Spankie, Serjt...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Gayler and Pope Ltd v Davies & Son
- Southport Corporation v Esso Petroleum Company Ltd (Inverpool.)
-
Sullivan v Creed
...S. 198; 1 Stark. 287. (1) 1 Q. B. D. 35. (1) 4 H. & C. 388. (2) 3 Q. B. D. at p. 339. (3) 10 Times L. R. 41. (4) 4 Times L. R. 324. (1) 5 Car. & P. 190. (2) 1 Q. B. (3) [1897] 1 Q. B. 240. (4) 3 Q. B. D. 327. (5) [1897] 2 I. R. 301, 313. (6) [1903] 1 K. B. 331. (7) L. R. 7 C. P. 253. (8) 5 ......
-
Cox v Burbridge
...an ac-[432]-tion will lie against him : but otherwise of dogs, before he has notice of some mischievous quality." In Illidye v. Goodwin, 5 C. & P. 190, jt was held that, if a horse and cart are left standing in the street, without any p*rsott to wateh them, the owner is liable for any damag......