Jeffries against The Great Western Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 January 1856 |
| Date | 14 January 1856 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 119 E.R. 680
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 25 L. J. Q. B. 107; 2 Jur. N. S. 230; 4 W. R. 201. Applied, The Winkfield, [1902] P. 55; Glenwood Lumber Company v. Phillips, [1904] A. C. 410.
680 JEFFRIES V. THE GHKAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY 5 EL. * BL 802. [802] jeffbies against the ghkat western railway company. Monday, January 14th, 1856. Trover. Pleas: Not guilty, and Not plaintiff's property. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff was in possession of goods which he claimed as his own property, under an assignment to him from O. Defendants seized the goods in plaintiff's possession, claiming them under an assignment from 0. to them, made whilst 0. was in apparent ownership of the goods, but of a later date than the assignment to the plaintiff. This was the conversion.-The defence was that the assignment by O. to the plaintiff was fraudulent as against the defendants. This was left to the jury, who found for the plaintiff. The defendants also offered as a defence to prove that O, had become bankrupt before plaintiff took possession, and that the goods were in his order and disposition, and therefore vested in the assignees before the conversion. The Judge refused to permit this defence. On a motion for a new trial,-Held that the Judge did right; for that, the plaintiff being in possession, and the defendants being wrongdoers not claiming in any way under the assignees, defendants could not set up the jus tertii as a defence in trover. [S. C. 25 L. J. Q. B. 107 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 230; 4 W. R. 201. Applied, The WinltfiM, [1902] P. 55; Glenwood Lumber Company v. Phillips, [1904] A. C. 410.] Trover for trucks. Pleas: 1. Not guilty. 2. That the trucks were not the property of the plaintiff. On the trial, before Pollock C.B. at the last Gloucester Summer Assizes, the plaintiff proved that he had possession of the trucks in question, which he claimed as his own property under an assignment from one Owen, and that the defendants had seized them, also claiming them as their own property under an assignment from Owen, executed after the assignment to the plaintiff, but before the plaintiff took possession, and whilst Owen was apparent owner of the goods. The defendants' counsel, in opening their case, stated that he should contend that the assignment to the plaintiff was fraudulent and void against the defendants, and that in addition he should prove that, before...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quinn v Pratt
...B. 275. (2) 5 Q. B. D 15. (1) [1903] 1 K. B. 275. (2) 5 Q. B. D, 15. (3) 41 L. J. (M. C.) 22. (4) 30 L. R. Ir. 15. (1) 1 Salk. 290. (1) 5 E. & B. 802. (2) 7 M. & W. (3) 10 C. B. 722. (4) 11 Exeh. 70. (5) 18 C. B. (N. S.) 515. (1) 5 E. & B. 802. [1903] 1 K. B. 275. (1) 3 M. & S. 411. (2) 3 B......
- Robinson v Midland Bank, Ltd
- Re Ebner;Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy
- Kent v Vessel Maria Luisa as Surrogate for Vessels Monika and Boston Bay
-
Taking possession: the defining element of theft?
...where the defendant has derived the goods from the plaintiff: see, eg, Jeffries v The Great Western Railway Co (1856) 5 El & Bl 802; 119 ER 680; Russell v Wilson (1923) 33 CLR 538, 547 (Isaacs and Rich JJ); The Anderson Group Pty Ltd v Tynan Motors Pty Ltd (2006) 65 NSWLR 400, 413 (Youn......