Jones v Dowle
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 November 1841 |
| Date | 08 November 1841 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 152 E.R. 9
EXCHEQUER OF PLEAS.
S. C. 1 Dowl. (N. S.) 391; 11 L. J. Ex. 52.
[19] jones v. dowle. Exch. of Pleas. Nov. 8, 1841.-Under the plea of non detinet, the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict on proof that the defendant has not returned the chattel to the plaintiff on demand, having previously delivered it, under a supposed contract of sale, to a third party. [S. C. 1 Dowl. (N. S.) 391 ; 11 L. J. Ex. 52.] Detinue for a picture. Pleas : first, that the chattel in the declaration mentioned was not the property of the plaintiff; secondly, non detinet. At the trial before Lord Abiuger, C. B., at the Middlesex sittings after last term, it appeared that the plaintiff had bought the picture in question at sale by auction, at which the defendant was the auctioneer, and had paid down a deposit to the defendant's clerk, whq took down his name as the purchaser. The defendant, however, understood that |ie had sold it to one Clift; and accordingly entered Clift's name as the purchaser, and delivered the picture to him on payment of the price. The plaintiff demanded it from Clift, who refused to give it up ; whereupon this action was brought. It was objected for the defendant, that the action could not be maintained, the picture not being in the possession or control of the defendant. The Lord Chief Baron overruled the objection; and having left it to the jury to say whether the plaintiff was really the purchaser, they found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages ,'5, leave being reserved to the defendant to move to enter a nonsuit. Petersdorff now moved accordingly. In order to maintain this action, the plaintiff was bound to shew that the chattel in question was in the possession or custody of the defendant, or of an agent over whom he could exercise control, at the time...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney General and Transport Authority v Aston Burey
...chattel or goods of another but also where a person who has possession of such goods or chattels improperly parted with possession – see Jones v Dowle (1841) 9 M & W 19; Ballett v Mingay; RosenthaI v Alderson & Sons Ltd. 10In detinue where the chattel or the goods are not ordered to be retu......
-
General and Finance Facilities Ltd v Cooks Cars (Romford) Ltd
...could sue in detinue notwithstanding that the defendant was not in actual possession of the chattel at the time of the demand. (See Jones v. Dowle (1841) 9 Neeson & Welsby page 19; Reeve v. Palmer 5 Common Bench (New Series) page 84). Alternatively the plaintiff could sue in conversion for ......
-
Cullen, Allen & Company v Barclay
...4 Esp. 156. Ross v. JohnsonENR 5 Burr. 2825. Clements v. FlightENR 16 M. & W. 42. Gledstane v. HewittENR 1 Cr. & J. 565. Jones v. DowleENR 9 M. & W. 19. Colegrave v. Dias Santos 2 B. & Cr. 76. Gledstane v. HewittENR 1 Cr. & J. 570. Broadbent v. Ledward 11 A. & E. 209. Clossman v. WhiteENR 7......
-
Reeve v Palmer
...entitle him to the verdict. He referred to the Year Books 12 E. 4, fo. 12, and 10 H. 7, fo. 7, pi. 7, and to the case of Jones v. Dmole, 9 M. & W. 19. Wells, Serjt., for the defendant, also obtained a rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against evidence. Wells, Ser......