Meredith v Flaxman

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date24 June 1831
Date24 June 1831
CourtHigh Court

English Reports Citation: 172 E.R. 894



Attornies-Becke, and Willoughby

June 24th, 1831. meredith v flaxman. (If a man employing an officer attends with the officer, who seizes in his presence the goodi ef a third person under an execution which he has sued out, he makes himself responsible for the officer's acts And, semble. that in such a case, where he is present and interferes, he ought, to point out to the officer what goods are to be taken, and what not ; also, if in such a case an unjustifiable assault be committed by the officer, the party authorizing the seizure will not be answerable for it, unless it be shewn in some way to have been committed by his direction ) Trespass for breaking and entering the plaintiff's room, and taking his goods, and assaulting and beating his wife. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and also justified the entry and assault, on the ground that a warrant had issued from the Lord Mayor's Court of London to take the goods of a person named Salt, which were in the room in question, and he entered for the purpose of taking them ; and while he was endeavouring to get at them, the plaintiff's wife obstructed him. [100] The defendant in this action had been plaintiff in an action in the Mayor's Court, and had obtained a verdict and judgment against a Mr. Salt, a surgeon, the upper part of whose house the plaintiff and his family had occupied for about two years The greatest part of the goods taken had been at one time the property of Salt. Amd the main question of fact in the cause was, whether there had been any transfer of them by Salt to the plaintiff But it appeared that there were a table and two pictures, which were the property of the plaintiff, having been brought by him from his former lodgings It did not appear that the defendant himself was in the room at all, and the assault upon the wife was committed by one of the officers, who went in under the warrant. The defendant, however, was proved to be near at hand during the seizure, and in communication with the officers ; and a witness stated that be heard him say to the broker, " I'll be damned but I'll have them " ; but he could not say of what they were speaking. On the part of the defendant it was contended, that, for the assault, he was clearly not liable to answer On the part of the plaintiff it was said, that, as he authorized the seizure, he was answerable for any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • South East Enterprises (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hean Nerng Holdings Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 15 March 2013
    ...1368 (refd) Kousal v Suncorp-Metway Ltd [2011] VSC 312 (refd) Lee v Rumilly (1891) 7 TLR 303 (refd) Meredith v Flaxman (1831) 5 Car & P 99; 172 ER 894 (folld) Moore v Lambeth County Court Registrar (No 2) [1970] 1 QB 560 (folld) Morris v Salberg (1889) 22 QBD 614 (refd) Owen v Daly [1955] V......
  • Charles Smith v William Holbrooke and John Butler
    • Ireland
    • Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 14 January 1846
    ...Bench. CHARLES SMITH and WILLIAM HOLBROOKE and JOHN BUTLER. Whitmore v. GreeneENR 13 M & W. 110 Meredith v. FlasxmanENR 5 C. & P. 99. Aitken v. Bedwell M & Mal. 68. Smith v. ShawENR 10 B. & C. 277. Coppinger v. Bradley 5 Ir. Law Rep. 257. Hudson v. M'Allen 4 Ir. Law Rep. 438; S. C. L. & T. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT