Moon and Another, Assignees of Fisher, a Bankrupt, v Raphael and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 November 1835 |
| Date | 21 November 1835 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 132 E.R. 122
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 2 Scott, 489; 1 Hodges, 289; 5 L. J. C. P. 46: at Nisi Prius, 7 Car. & P. 115.
[310] moon and another, Assignees of Fisher, a Bankrupt, v. eaphael and another. Nov. 21, 1835. [S. C. 2 Scott, 489; 1 Hodges, 289; 5 L. J.C. P. 46 : at Nisi Prius, 7 Car. & P. 115.] Defendant, a sheriff, who held goods taken in execution, delivered them to Plaintiffs, assignees of a bankrupt, after an action of trover had been commenced by them: the Plaintiffs accept the goods without condition : Held, that they could not recover in the action more than nominal damages; at all events, not without alleging special damage in the declaration. Trover by the assignees of a bankrupt against a sheriff, for the conversion of goods of the bankrupt taken under a fi. fa. after the issuing of the fiat. The declaration was in the common form, and contained no allegation of special damage. The goods were delivered up by the Defendants before plea pleaded, and accepted by the Plaintiffs without condition, but they continued their action, with a view to recover damages. At the trial, it appeared that Fisher became bankrupt in July 1834; that the fiat was issued against him January 23, 1835; that the goods had been seized in the bankrupt's house, under the fi. fa., in November 1834, and that the sheriff's officers had kept a walking possession till January 23d, 1835, when the messenger under the commission took charge of the goods; but the sheriff's officer did not depart, and it was not till the 20th of February that the Plaintiffs made a formal demand on the sheriff. In the May following, they paid the landlord of the premises on which the goods had been lying, 451. for a quarter's rent accruing to him at Lady-day, which sum, together with 151., the charge for the messenger's attendance from the 23d of January, they sought to recover in this action as the consequence of the conversion by the Defendants, On the part of the Defendants, it was contended that, the goods having been delivered up and accepted before the trial, the Plaintiffs were entitled to no more than nominal damages, in order to secure them the costs of [311] the action; and that evidence of the special damage ought not to have been received. A verdict was thereupon taken for 601., with leave for the Defendants to reduce it to Is., if the Court should be of opinion that special...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilbraham v Snow
...to trial to recover his costs ; but he cannot, generally speaking, recover more than nominal damages, unless special damage is laid. 2 Bing. N. C. 310, Moon v. Itaphael. 2 Scott, 489, S. C. As to staying proceedings on restoring the goods and payment of costs, see 2 Chitt. Arch. 985, et seq......
-
Vestwin Trading Pte Ltd and Another v Obegi Melissa and Others
...are claimed in actions of tort these will generally be a matter of surprise to the defendant at the trial. Thus in Moon v Raphael [(1835) 2 Bing N C 310; 132 ER 122] the claimant, suing for conversion of goods, was refused damages for loss of business profits from being deprived of the use ......
-
McGrath v Bourne
...2 Starkie, 317. Berry v. Da CostaELR L. R. 1 C. P. 335, 336, per Keatinge, J. Leader v. RhysENR 2 F. & F. 399. Moon v. RaphaelENR 2 Bing. N. C. 310. Campbell v. Evans 6 Ir. Jur. (O. S.) 243. Williams v. ArcherENR 5 C. B. 318. Leader v. RhysENR 2 F. & F. 399. [10 C. B. N. S. 369]. Illegal di......
-
Vestwin Trading Pte Ltd and Another v Obegi Melissa and Others
...actions of tort these will generally be a matter of surprise to the defendant at the trial. Thus in Moon v Raphael [(1835) 2 Bing N C 310; 132 ER 122] the claimant, suing for conversion of goods, was refused damages for loss of business profits from being deprived of the use of the goods be......