Lovett against Hobbs
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1794 |
| Date | 01 January 1794 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 89 E.R. 836
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH
case 106. lovett against hobbs. A stage coachman is a common carrier within the custom, of the realm, and is liable for the loss of goods which the passengers take with them; for he has the charge of both their property and their persons. Case. The plaintiff declares, for that Eichard Hobbs, on the first day of November, in the thirty-first year of Charles the Second, and long before and after, was, and yet is a common hackney coachman, and a common carrier as well of men's persons, as of their goods and chattels, in his coach from the borough of Marlborough to the City of London ; and thence to Marlborough, pro mercede et stipendio, to be paid for persons and their goods; and also, that all common coachmen and common carriers by the law and custom of England (a), ought safely and securely to keep all passengers goods (a) In trespass for levying a distress for non-payment of poor rates, one question was, whether beasts of the plough could be taken? and Lord Mansfield, in delivering the judgment of the Court, said, " the solid distinction is between those distresses which are made under 43 Eliz. c. 2, and other penal statutes, where a sale of the goods is directed, and a distress at common law, where the goods taken are to be held by way of pledge ; " and on this distinction it was held, that beasts of the plough, and all other implements and utensils in trade, though not distrainable at common law, are distrainable for the poor rates, under the 43 Eliz. c. 2, and such like Acts of Parliament. Hutchins v. Chambers, 1 Bur. 579. This distinction has been adopted in the case of distress for rent, where the officers seized the wearing apparel of the tenant; and it was objected that such goods, like utensils in trade, or beasts of the plough, could not be distrained : but Lord Kenyon held, that as the Statute of 2 Will. & Mary, c. 5, had given the distrainer power to sell, the reason of the common law, which depended on the goods taken being in the nature of a pledge, had vanished, and therefore that the wearing apparel was distrainable. Galdwell v. Tayler, Const's edit, of Bott's Poor Laws, 1 vol. page 206, note (a). But if implements of trade, or beasts of the plough, be in actual use at the time, or if there be other sufficient distress on the premises, they cannot be distrained. Gordon v. Falkner, 4 Term Rep. 565, See also Ld. Ray, 386. Co. Lit. 47 a. 3 Bl. Com. 8. 1...
To continue reading
Request your trial