McCombie against Davies
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 November 1805 |
| Date | 11 November 1805 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 1393
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Explained, Spackman v. Foster, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 101. Dicta adopted, Fine Art Society v. Union Bank of London, 1886, 17 Q. B. D. 712; Gordon v. London City and Midland Bank [1902], 1 K. B. 265; [1903], A. C. 240.
M'COMBIE against davibs. Friday, June 21st, 1805. Taking the property of' another by assignment from one who had no authority to dispose of it; as taking an assignment of tobacco in the King's warehouse by way of pledge from a broker who had purchased it there in his own name for his principal; and refusing to deliver it to the principal after notice and demand by him; none other than the person in whose name it is warehoused being able to take it out; is a conversion. [Explained, Spademan v. Foster, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 101. Dicta adopted, Fine Art (a) Vide the observations of Mr. Justice Buller in Roe v. Galliers, 2 Term Rep. 140, upon the case of Doe d. Lord Stanhope v. Skeggs, Tr. 21 Geo. 3, B. K., and vi. Roe d. Gregson v. Harrison, 2 Term Eep. 425. 1394 m'combie v. davies e east, 539. Society v. Union Bank of London, 1886, 17 Q. B. D. 712; Gordon v. London City and Midland Bank [1902], 1 K. B. 265; [1903], A. C. 240.J In trover for a certain quantity of tobacco, tried at the sittings after Michaelmas term 1804, at Guildhall, before Lord Ellenborough C.J. the plaintiff was nonsuited, on the ground that there was no conversion by the defendant. A motion was made in Hilary term last to set aside the nonsuit, and for a new trial, and the opinion of the Court was reserve^ on the following facts : The plaintiff, a merchant in Aberdeen had employed one Coddan, an accredited broker in the tobacco trade, and a dealer in tobacco on his own account, to purchase for him some tobacco, which Coddan accordingly did; and the tobacco in question was part of it. But the defendant had no knowledge of the transaction between the plaintiff and Coddan. Coddan, the broker, bought the tobacco in his own name whilst it was in the King's warehouse, and had it transferred to himself in his own name in the King's warehouse, where it remained subj'ect to the payment of the duties, as is usual till the tobacco is actually delivered out of the warehouse. Coddan being in want of money pledged the tobacco in his own name with the defendant for a sum of money, and transferred it into the defendant's name in the King's warehouse. Afterwards an application was made to the defendant, on the part of the plaintiff, for a delivery of [539] the tobacco in question. The defendant answered, that he had advanced money to Coddan thereon; that he did not know M'Combie, and could not transfer it but to Coddan's order, and not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilbraham v Snow
...and in ignorance of any act of bankruptcy. 6 A. & E. 899, Pearson v. Graham. 2 N. & P. 636, S. C.] (y:) The same point was ruled in 6 East, 538, M'Combie v. Davis, where the defendant had taken tobacco as a pledge from the broker of the owner : but it should be observed, that in both these ......
-
Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company (Nos 4 & 5)
...to one's self the property and right of disposing of another's goods …' See too, the judgment of Lord Ellenborough in McCombie v Davies (1805) 7 East 5, 6, where the Chief Justice accepted the submission that apart from any question of possession the assumption of any dominion over the good......
-
Antonio Bonzi and Lewis Bonzi v Patrick Maxwell Stewart
...transaction; and if so, the refusal to deliver the warrants to the plaintiffs would amount to a conversion. In M'Combie [321] v. Davies (6 East, 538. S. C. not S. P., 7 East, 5) it was held, that -taking the property of another by assignment from one who had no authority to dispose of it, a......
-
Hilbery v Hatton and Another
...252). Therefore a demand and refusal are necessary to constitute a conversion : Ntxon v. Jenkins (2 H. Black. 135), M'Combe v. Dames (6 East, 538), Metcalfe v. Lwnsden (1 C. & K. 309). In FeathetstanlMuyh v. Johnston (8 Taunt. 237) the defendant sold the goods ; and a sale alone amounts to ......
-
Change of position and restitution for wrongs: 'ne'er the twain shall meet'?
...(131) See, eg, Fouldes v Willoughby (1841) 8 M & W 540, 547; 151 ER 1153, 1156 (Lord Abinger CB). (132) See M'Combie v Davies 0805) 7 East 5, 6; 103 ER 3, 4 (Lord Ellenborough CJ); Hollins v Fowler (1875) LR 7 HL 757, 766 (Blackburn .I), 782 (Brett J); Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway C......
-
VINDICATIO The Missing Remedy?
...AC 573; R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex parte Evans (No 2)[2001] 2 AC 19. 98 Cooper v Chitty (1756) 1 Burr 20; M'Combie v Davies(1805) 6 East 538 (Lord Ellenborough expressly approving Holt CJ's dictum in Baldwin v Cole(1704) 6 Mod 212; (1704) 87 ER 964 at 540). 99 (1815) 4 M&S 259. 10......