Newton against Trigg
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1794 |
| Date | 01 January 1794 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 87 E.R. 217
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS, EXCHEQUER.
3 MOD. 328. MICHAELMAS TERM, 2 WILLIAM AND MARY. IN C. B. 217 case 201. newton against trigg. Michaelmas Term, 1 Jac. 2, Eoll 226. The Statutes of Bankrupts do not extend to innkeepers.-S. C. 1 Show. 96, 268. S. C. 1 Lev. 309. S. C. Garth. 149. S. C. Comb. 181. S. C. Salk. 109. Cro. Car. 549. 1 Vent. 270. Skin. 292. 1 Salk. 110. 2 Mod. 48. 8 Mod. 46. 12 Mod. 159, 307, 344, 420, 591. Ld. Ray. 287, 852. 1 Stra. 513. 2 Stra. 809. 2 Peer. Wms. 308. 3 Peer. Wms. 298. 'l Com. Dig. 521. 2 Wils. 170, 382. 4 Burr. 2064, 2148. 1 Atk. 141. 2 Bl. Com. 476. 1 Cooke's B. L. 46. Trespass for breaking and entering of his close, treading down of his grass, &c. and taking away of his goods. Upon not guilty pleaded, a special verdict was found, That the plaintiff was an innkeeper, and a freeman of the City of London ; that he bought oats, nay, &c. which he sold in his inn, by which he got his living ; that he, with others, built a ship, and he had a share therein, and a stock of fifty pounds to trade withal; that he was indebted to several persons; that he departed from his house, and absconded from his creditors ; that thereupon a commission of bankruptcy was taken out against him, at the petition of the creditors ; that the plaintiff was indebted to Trigg; that the commissioners found him to be a bankrupt; and by indenture bearing date the 25th day of June, made a bargain and sale of the goods to Trigg, who did take and carry them away, &c. The question was, whether upon the whole matter the plaintiff was a bankrupt or not ? Thompson, Serjeant, argued, that he was not within any of the Statutes of Bankruptcy; for an innkeeper is under many obligations and circumstances different from all other tradesmen ; he is to take care of the goods of travellers, and if he set an unreasonable price upon his goods, it is an offence which the justices of peace and stewards in their leets have power to hear and determine.-Secondly, he does not buy and sell by way of contract; for most of his gains arise by the entertaining and lodging of his guests, by the attendance of his servants, by the furniture of his rooms, and not by uttering of commodities, as in other trades. And therefore, by the opinion of three Judges in the case of Crisp v. Prat (a), it was held, that an innholder does not get his living by buying and selling ; for though he buys provision, he does not sell it by way of contract, but utters it at what gain he thinks reasonable, which his guests may refuse to give ; and [328] Berkley, Justice, in the arguing of that case agreed, that he who gets his living by buying only, and not both by buying and selling, is not within the statutes; but the jury having found that he got a livelihood by both, and by using the trade of an innholder, therefore he was a bankrupt: but the other three Judges were of a contrary opinion, because an innkeeper cannot properly be said to sell his goods. As to his having a share in a ship, it is no more than a stock to trade, which may go to an infant, or to an executor after his decease, and if either of these persons should trade with it, they cannot be made bankrupts, because it is in autre drmt (a). E contra it was argued, that he who keeps an inn is a tradesman, and may be properly said to get his living by buying and selling. The goods of a traveller are not diatrainable for the rent of an innkeeper; the reason is, because he is more immediately concerned as a tradesman for the benefit of commerce. It was the opinion of my Lord Eolls (b), that an innkeeper was a tradesman, therefore any man might build a new inn, for it was no franchise, but a particular trade, to keep an inn. And as a tradesman he sells his goods to his guests by way of contract, for he is not bound to provide hay and oats for the horses of his guests without being paid in hand (a) Cro. Car. 548. (a) See the case Ex parte Null, 1 Atkins, 102, that the executor of a trader who only disposes of his testator's stock, or buys materials to fine the wine of the testator, is not a trader within the Statutes of Bankrupts. (b) 2 Eoll. Abr. 84. 218 MICHAELMAS TERM, 2 WILLIAM AND MARY. IN C. B. 3 MOD. 329. as soon as the horses come...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prattle against King
...C. 2 Jones, 169. S. C. 2 Danv. 504. Cro. Eliz. 225. Poph. 120. 5 Co. 31. I Vent. 171. 2 Vent. 209. 1 Sid. 266. 1 Lev. 128. 1 Cro. 125, 685. 3 Mod. 327. 8 Mod. 288, 356. 10 Mod. 12. 12 Mod. 7. 1 Wils. 4. 5 Com. Dig. 201. Husband and wife, administrators in the right of the wife, bring an act......
-
Jones against Morley
...the ninth of July, in the eighteenth year of Charles the Second, Edward Morley, by lease and (o) March, 34. Cro. Car. 395. W. Jones, 437. 3 Mod. 327. 1 Show. 96, 268. 3 Lev. 309. Garth. 149. Comb. 181. Salk. 109. 2 Wils. 382. Burr. 2064. 1 Term Rep. 572. 1 Brown C. C. 177. (J) 1 Vent. 5. 3 ......
-
Brickwood against Fanshaw
...of his inn, is not a trader within the Statutes of Bankrupts, although he is partowner of a ship let out on freight.-S. C. post, 268. S. C. 3 Mod. 327. S. C. 3 Lev. 309. S. C. Garth. 149. S. C. Comb. 181. S. C. Salk. 109. Trespass. Special verdict. The point was, if a man who keeps an inn a......