Mead v Hamond
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
Mead
and
ers. Hamond
English Reports Citation:93 E.R. 663
COURTS OF CHANCERY, KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
[505] mead vers. hamond. Ibid. Trover lies against master for goods delivered to the apprentice. The plaintiff according to the common course of dealing delivered to the defendant's servant an ingot of gold to essay ; and it not being returned, he brought trover against the master. And the Chief Justice directed the jury, that the delivery 664 HILARY TERM, 8 GEO. 1 8TRAHOB, J06...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
44 cases
- Buchanan Turf Supplies Pty Ltd v Premier Turf Supplies Pty Ltd
-
Morris-Garner and another v One Step (Support) Ltd
...adducing relevant evidence, the court can make presumptions in favour of the claimant. The point is illustrated by the case of Armory v Delamirie (1721) 1 Str 505, where a chimney sweep's boy found a jewel and took it to the defendant's shop to find out what it was. The defendant returned o......
-
Marathon Asset Management LLP and Another v James Seddon and Others
...in favour of the claimant. The classic illustration of this principle is the old case of Armory v Delamirie (1722) 1 Strange 505, 93 ER 664, where a chimney sweeper's boy found a jewel and took it to the defendant's shop to find out what it was. The defendant did not return the jewel but on......
- Sprint Electric Ltd v Buyer's Dream Ltd
Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
-
Competing Rights
...lost, so the facts were presumed against the goldsmith 187 [1988] QB 345 [ Indian Oil Corp ]. 188 Ibid at 370–71. 189 (1722) 1 Strange 505, 93 ER 664. 190 Ibid . Competing Right s 291 within the limits of the available evidence. The size of the socket was known, but the quality of the gemst......