Lee v Cooke
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 February 1858 |
| Date | 05 February 1858 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 157 E.R. 240
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C. 27 L J. Ex 337, 6 W. R 63. affirmed 1858, 3 H & N. 203.
lee v. cooke. Nov. 19,1857.-The defendant had distrained a stack of the plaintiff which was sold under the distress by auction, one of the conditions of the sale being that the purchaser should pay for the same at the fall of the hammer. The plaintiff, who was present at the sale, said, it was "one thing to buy the stack and another to take it away." The purchaser did not pay the price or any deposit, asnd the stack remained on the plaintiff's premises, a lock having been put on the gate of the field where it was, by the auctioneer. The purchaser having attempted to remove the stack a few days afterwards, was prevented from doing so by the violence of the plaintiff and several other men He then repudiated the the purchase and refused to pay for the stack. The defendant 2H&N. 585 LEE V COOKE 241 then distrained again The jury having found that the purch.iser had not at any time after the sale an opportunity of taking away the stack, Held that the second distress was lawful [S C. 27 L J. Ex 337 , 6 W. R 63 . affirmed 1858, 3 H & N. 203.] The declaration was in tiespass for breaking and entering a close of the plaintiff, with a count in trover for sheep Plea, Justification as a distress for rates, by the defendant as one of the General Commissioners &c , under certain acts of parliament (2 Geo 3), foi draining and preserving certain low lauds called " The Fens, lying on both sides of the river Witham," &c., and (41 Geo 3), " An Act for the better arid more effectually draining certain tracts of land called the Wildmeie Fen," &c Replication. That after the said rates had become due, and before the grievances, &c., the General Commissioners, for the time being appointed and acting under and [585] by virtue of the said Acts lespectively, seized and took and distrained other goods of the plaintiff, to \vit, a stack of beans, as a distress for the said rates and taxes in the said plea mentioned, the said goods being liable to a distiess for the said rates, and of sufficient value to pay and satisfy the same, and the costs and charges of the said distress, and the appiaisement and sale thereof, and the said General Commissioners afterwards sold the said last mentioned goods to one Leverton, and could and might and ought to have fully paid arid satisfied the said rates and the said costs and charges, and without any sufficient cause or excuse, refused and neglected so to do Rejoinders First, taking issue on the replication Secondly, that after the General Commissioners had made the distress in the replication mentioned, and before the General Commissioners could satisfy the said rates and taxes by means of the last mentioned distress, the plaintiff wrongfully and forcibly prevented the General Commissioners and then collector from delivering the goods and chattels distrained, as in the replication mentioned, to Leverton; and wrongfully and forcibly prevented Leverton from taking possession of the same, and thereby wrongfully and illegally prevented the defendant from acquiring any legal remedy against Leverton for the price of the said last mentioned goods and chattels , and the plaintiff wrongfully and forcibly kept and detained the last mentioned goods and chattels in hrs (the plaintiff's) own possession, and converted and disposed thereof to his own use and that the plaintiff, of his own wrong and by his own act and default, prevented the General Commissioners from obtaining payment of the rates arid taxes and the costs of the List mentioned! distress or any pait thereof by means of a sale of the stack of beans, and rendered the last mentioned distress wholly ineffectual and abortive Whereupon issue was joined [586] At the trial before Cresswell, J , at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial