Jarvis v Williams
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE ROMER |
| Judgment Date | 14 December 1954 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1954] EWCA Civ J1214-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 14 December 1954 |
[1954] EWCA Civ J1214-1
In the Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
The Master of the Rolls (Sir Raymond Evershed)
Lord Justice Birkett and
Lord Justice Romer
Counsel for the Appellant: MR G. REED, instructed by Messrs Powell, Skues ' Graham Smith, Agents for Messrs J.E, Rodgers ' Pembroke,. Bexhill-on-Sea, Sussex,
Counsel for the Respondent: MR J.H. ELLIOTT, instructed by Messrs Sprott ' Sons, Tunbridge Wells.
The action which now comes before us on appeal appears originally to have been an action brought in the Queen's Bench Division of tine High Court by the present Respondent Jarvis against one Paterson, and was for the sum of £72. 15s. 0d. for goods sold and delivered. The items are set out in the special endorsement on the the, and I will refer to them hereafter in bathroom fittings. That Writ was issued in the month of October, 1951; in fact some long time, four years or more, after the date of the original alleged sale, so that it is not entirely surprising if some of the facts are a little obscures. However that may be, the later history of the proceedings was that the plaintiff joined as a Defendant one Geoffrey Williams, the present Appellant, and is against him claimed in detinue for the return of the goods with, further or alternatively, damages for detention of the some goods. The short facts lending up to that alleged cause of action are as I will state in a moment. At or about the time that Williams was joined I understand that the respondent Jarvis discontinued the proceedings against Paterson.
The only question which now arises here is whether the Plaintiff, the Respondent Jarvis, has a good cause of action in detinue against Williams in respect of these goods. The judgment of the learned County Court Judge makes most of the matter quite plain; thus, as he points out in his judgment, the goods, the bathroom fittings in question which had been ordered by Paterson from Jarvis, were delivered in fact at Paterson's request not to Paterson's house, but to the premises of the present Appellant, Williams, and there for some considerable time they remained. There were some questions whether they were damaged, or had been damaged, since delivery; but nothing, I think, turns on those questions. On the otherhand, In the year 1949 in the month of May, a question arose between Jarvis and Peterson whether or not Jarvis would take these goods back, and Jarvis appears to have written to Paterson in May of 1949. That letter is not before yet and all we know of it is that, according to Jarvis's Affidavit which was read, the Affidavit made by him when he sought to obtain summary judgment against Paterson on the original claim, he said: "I wrote to the Defendant Paterson as to whether he wished to retain the fittings, and, if not, I told, under the circumstances, be prepared to take them back if he was prepared to pay me for collection." It appears that that letter was unacknowledged, and that jarvis wrote again at the beginning of September in the same year. The second letter brought forth the reply which is set out in the learned County Court Judge is judgment. It is from Paterson to Jarvis, and ran thus; "I am obliged for year letter of the 9th September end please accept my apologies for not replying to yours of the 6th May, 1949. I had the impression that you had collected long ago, but as you evidently have not will you kindly do so, and I agree to pay the cost of collection."
To complete the narrative, which I can do briefly, on receipt of that letter Jarvis sent hie- foreman or lorryman, one Sands, armed with the letter to the premises of Williams. He, Sands, asked that the bathroom fittings should be delivered to him, but he was told by a lady, who may, or may not, have been Mrs Wiliiams, that he could not take the bathroom fittings away, and so he left empty handed it was after that episode that the present proceedings started; though Jarvis, for some reason or another, allowed a period of some two years to elapse before he began the proceedings, and it was another three years before eventually they were tried in the County Court.
The first question is, what was the effort of the arrangement made as a result of the letter of the 14th September? I have said that the two letters therein referred to are not before us. But the Judge said that he had some evidence from Jarvis which explained the terms of the letter, and he came to this conclusion. First, he said (and Mr Elliott relied strongly upon this) that the effect of the arrangement was, the Plaintiff, agree to take the fittings back; he (that is Paterson) to pay the carriage." Then, after stating the subsequent narrative which I have already myself stated, the Judge said: "It is clear to me that the arrangement of 1949 to take the goods back never transferred the property back to the Plaintiff, It remained in Paterson because the Plaintiff in fact never got the goods back, and never intended the property to revert until he got them back. This is confirmed by the Writ for the price of goods sold and delivered." I think for my part that the learned County Court Judge was quite right in that conclusion.
Mr Elliott submitted that the question was really one of fact, and was determine in his favour by the brief...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
International Factors Ltd v Rodriguez
...not in itself sufficient to clothe the person who has that right with power to sue in conversion. That wasthe decision of this court in Jarvis v. Williams, (1955) 1 Weekly Law Reports, page 71. The headnote of that case reads as follows: "In January, 1948, J. delivered bathroom fittings to ......
- MCC Proceeds Inc. v Lehman Brothers International (Europe)
-
Transcontainer Express Ltd v Custodian Security Ltd
...a possessory title entitling him to bring proceedings. In support of this submission he referred us to a number of authorities, such as Jarvis v. Williams (1955) 1 W.L.R. 71, International Factors Ltd. v. Rodriguez (1979) Q.B. 351, Simpson & Co. v. Thomson (1877) 3 A.C. 279 and Elliott Stea......
-
Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran v The Barakat Galleries Ltd
...relies must be a proprietary right; a mere contractual right will not do.” Two authorities are cited in support of this proposition, Jarvis v Williams [1955] 1 WLR 71; International Factors v Rodriguez [1979] 1 QB 351. The judge considered these authorities and held that they supported the ......
-
Tort Law
...the transferee should be entitled to sue in conversion. In so holding, Vinodh Coomaraswamy J doubted the decision in Jarvis v Williams[1955] 1 WLR 71 to the extent that it has been taken to stand for the proposition that a mere contractual right to possession cannot amount to a right to sue......
-
RIGHTS UNDER BILLS OF LADING: TRAWLING THROUGH SINGAPORE WATERS
...Co[1988] SLR 699. 151 A mere contractual right to possession is insufficient to found a right to sue in conversion: see Jarvis v Williams[1955] 1 WLR 71 and International Factors Ltd v Rodriguez[1979] QB 351 at 357. However, a bailor’s right to possession of the goods is sufficient to maint......