Mertens v Adcock
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 January 1803 |
| Date | 18 January 1803 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 709
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Dissented from, Hagedorn v Laing, 1815, 6 Taunt. 162 Over-ruled, Lamond v Davall, 1847, 9 Q B 1030
[251] Sitting-day after Term, in the Court of King's Bench, at Guildhall. Feb. 26th. mertens v. adcock (In an action on the case, for not taking away goods sold by public auction, and for a loss on the resale, the plaintiff may recover on the count for goods bargained and sold , and it is no objection to his right to recover on that count, that he has not the goods then to deliver, in case he had a verdict ) [Dissented from, Hagedorn v Laitig, 1815, 6 Taunt. 162 Over-ruled, Laniond v Davall 1847, 9 Q B 1030 ] This was an action on the case The action was brought to recover damages, for not taking away goods sold by public sale, and for the difference in price, being a loss on the resale. The declaration set out the conditions of sale, and averred the sale of the goods specified. One averment in the declaration, in setting out the conditions of sale, was, " That the purchaser should make a deposit of £ (not setting out on the record any sum whatever); and that if any purchaser should omit to take away the goods within the time limited by the conditions of sale, it should be lawful to resell them by public sale, or private contract," &c The plaintiff proved the purchase of the goods, and the conditions of sale ; but it appeared that ten per cent was to be made as a deposit. Gibbs objected to the variance , and that the plaintiff could not recover It was answered by the plaintiff's counsel, who seemed to admit the objection to be valid, that putting that out of the question, there was a count in the declaration for goods bargained and [252] sold, on which the plaintiff would be entitled to recover : That the defendant had become...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lamond and Others against Davall
... ... And he cited Mertens v. Adcock (4 Esp. N. P. C. 251), where a vendor had recovered for goods bargained and sold, after a resale. He also contended that, under the plea of ... ...
-
Re H.ex parte H., an Alleged Debtor
...22 L. J. Bac. 21. Phillimore v. BarryENR 1 Camp. 513. Ex parte Sturt & Co., in re PearcyELR L. R. 13 Eq. 309. Mertens v. AdcockENR 4 Esp. 251. Hagedorn v. LaingENR 6 Taunt. 162. Maclean v. DunnENR 4 Bing. 722. Lamond v. Davall 9 Q. B. 1030. Ex parte Sturt & Co.ELR L. R. 13 Eq. 311. Ex parte......
-
Shelly, Plaintiff; Miller and Wife, Deforciants. Johnson, Plaintiff; Same DEforciants
... ... J. in the case of Mertens v. Adcock (4 Esp. N. P. Cas. 251). The special contract enables the Plaintiff to resell, so that he does not by the resale repudiate his contract, ... ...