Lunn v Thornton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 February 1845 |
| Date | 06 February 1845 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 135 E.R. 587
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
S. C. 14 L. J. C. P. 161; 9 Jur. 350. See In re Harcourt, 1883, 31 W. R. 580; Cochrane v. Moore, 1890, 25 Q. B. D. 62.
lunn v. thornton. Feb. 6, 1845. [S. C. 14 L. J. C. P. 161; 9 Jur. 350. See In re Harcmrt, 1883, 31 W. E. 580; Gochrme v. Moore, 1890, 25 Q. B. D. 62.] A grant of goods which are not in existence, or which do not belong to the grantor at the time of executing the deed, is void, unless the grantor ratify the grant by some act done by him with that view, after he has acquired the property therein. Trover, for bread, flour, household furniture, &c. The defendant pleaded, as to all except the bread and flour, first, not guilty, secondly, not possessed, and, thirdly, leave and licence; and, as to the excepted articles, fourthly, payment into court of 5s. The cause was tried before Patteson, J., at the last spring assizes for the county of Bucks. By a deed-poll bearing date the 4th of August, 1843, it was witnessed that the plaintiff, who had carried on the business of a baker at Stoney-Stratford, in consideration of 1121. lls. 6d., lent to him by the defendant, a meal-man, bargained, sold, and delivered unto the defendant " all and singular his goods, household furniture, plate, linen, china, stock and inplements in trade, and other effects whatsoever, then remaining and being, or which [380] should at any time thereafter remain and be in, upon, or about his dwelling-house at Stoney-Stratford aforesaid, and also all other his effects elsewhere; " and that the defendant, in the month of October following, under colour of this assignment, seized all the goods then upon the premises, and, amongst them, certain goods which were not upon the premises or in the plaintiff's possession at the time of the execution of the deed-poll, but were goods acquired by the plaintiff afterwards, and were upon the premises' at the time of the seizure. On the part bf the defendant it was contended that the bill of sale covered all goods of the grantor that might be upon the premises at the time of the seizure, whether there at the time of the execution of the bill of sale or not. For the plaintiff, it was insisted that the grant could only operate upon goods which he had actually or potentially at the time the grant was made. Under the direction of the learned judge, the jury found for the plaintiff on the first and third issues, and for the defendant on the second and fourth; leave being reserved to the plaintiff to move to enter a verdict on the second issue, with 51. damages, the estimated value of the goods seized that were not in his possession at the time of the execution of the bill of sale, in the event of the court being of opinion that the bill of sale did not justify the seizure of those goods. Byles, Serjt., in Easter term last, accordingly obtained a rule nisi. He submitted that the bill of sale could not operate to convey to the defendant goods of which the grantor was not, at the time of executing it, possessed, actually or potentially : citing 14 Viner's Abridgment, tit. Grants (p. 50), Sheppard's Touchstone (tit. Grant, p. 241), Perkins ( 65, 90), and Grantham v. Eawley (Hobart, 132). [381] Channel!, Serjt. (with whom was Gunning), in Trinity term shewed cause. The words of the bill of sale are large enough to convey after-acquired property; and it evidently was not the intention of the parties that the security should be limited to property in the plaintiff's possession at the time of its execution. A bill of sale of goods, made for a valuable consideration, though unaccompanied with the possession, 588 LUNN V. THORNTON 1,C.B.382. is valid as against the vendor, and also as against a creditor with whose knowledge and assent it was given: Steel v. Brown (1 Taunt. 381). In Irons v. Smallpiece (2 B. & Aid. 551), it was held, upon the authority of Bunn v. Markham (2 Marsh. 532), that a verbal gift...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bfsl 2007 Ltd and Others ((in Liquidation)) v Steigrad
...of a floatingcharge which becomes fixed once there are moneys payable in respect of the liability in question”. 66 Lunn v Thornton (1845) 1 CB 379 at 388, 135 ER 587 at 590. See also Peter Blanchard and Michael Gedye The Law of Company Receiverships in Australia and New Zealand (2nd ed, But......
-
A P Holroyd and Others v J G Marshall and Others
...a sufficient " declaratio praeced-ens " in the words of the maxim; and although Chief Justice Tindal, in the case of Lunn v. Thornton [1 C.B. 379], said, " It is not a question, whether a deed might not have been so framed as to give the Defendant a power of seizing the future personal good......
- Akron Tyre Company Pty Ltd v Kittson
-
A P Holroyd and Others v J G Marshall and Others
...Ph. 728); Newlaiuk v. Paynter (4 Myl. & Cr. 408); Taylor v. JVheeler (2 Salk. 449); Can- v. Allatt (27 L. J. Exeh. 385); Lunn v. Thwntm (1 C. B. 379); Langton v. Horton (1 Hare, 549). Though Taylor was in possession at the time of the levy, it was not as agent for the Plaintiffs, but in his......