Noble v Adams
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 June 1816 |
| Date | 29 June 1816 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 129 E.R. 24
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 2 Marsh. 366: at Nisi Prius, Holt, N. P. 248. Distinguished, Harris v. Lunell, 1819, 1 Br. & B. 391. Referred to, Bristol v. Witsmore, 1823, 1 B. & P. 521; Load v. Green, 1846, 15 Mee. & W. 218. Commented on, Ex parte Whittaker, 1875, L. R. 10 Ch. 447 (n).
noble v. adams. June 29, 1810. [S. C. 2 Marsh. 366 : at Nisi Prius, Holt, N. P. 248. Distinguished, Harris v. Lunell, 1819, 1 Br. & B. 391. Referred to, Bristol v. Wilsmore, 1823, 1 B. & P. 521; Load v. Green, 1846, 15 Mee. & W. 218. Commenbed on, Exparte IVhitlaker, 1875, L. R. 10 Ch. 447 ().] The obtaining goods upon false pretences, under colour of purchasing them, does not change the property.-Where goods are delivered to a vendee at a wharf, who afterwards ships, them there, no subsequent stoppage of the goods in tranaitu can take place.-Where a bankrupt sued for the benefit of his assignees, the Court refused to grant a new trial, unless his assignees would abide by the verdict and become responsible for the costs. This was an action of trover, for certain Madras handkerchiefs. The Plaintiff contended that he had purchased them from Cross and Co. The Defendant was a wharfinger in London, into whose hands the goods had come by the Plaintiff's order, upon their arrival in London from Glasgow. The Defendant sought to retain the goods for the benefit of Cross and Co., by whom he was indemnified; and upon the trial of the cause at Guildhall, at the sittings after Easter term 1816, the Defendant insisted upon two grounds of defence, first, that the vendors had a right to stop the goods in tranaitu, which they had exercised by forbidding the Defendant to deliver them; next, that the property in the goods never had been changed, the goods having been obtained under such circumstauces of fraud as vitiated the sale. It appeared in evidence, that the Plaintiff, a trader iti London, being the holder of a bill for 4471. 13s. accepted by Outhwaite and Co., with whom he was iti the habit of exchanging bills, and whom he knew to have become insolvent, and knowing himself also to be in embarrassed circumstances, wrote to Malcolm, a creditor in Glasgow, stating that Outhwaite and Co. could not pay their bills, and were not worth a farthing, and that it was necessary for him, the Plaintiff, to go [60] down into Scotland, and purchase goods, by which means he could stand, and would help out one or two of his creditors. He went to Glasgow, and there purchased the goods in question of Cross and Co., for which he paid by Outhwaite's acceptance, and by another bill for 1081. 13s. lOd. which Malcolm was prevailed on to draw on the Plaintiff, in favour of Cross and Co. payable at Prescott's nd Co., in London. He did not, however, assist either of his creditors. It did not appear in evidence who was the person that delivered the goods at the wharf at Leith, but it clearly appeared that they were shipped for London by the Plaintiff himself, to whom the Defendant's employers, the Edinburgh and Leith shipping company, gave an acknowledgment, dated 21st April 1815, that they had received the goods from the Plaintiff, to be shipped at Leith in the " Hope," deliverable at the Glasgow wharf, London. Gibbs C. J. waa of opinion, that it appeared, that there had been an absolute delivery to the Plaintiff, and that the right of stoppage in transitu was at an end, but reserved the point. Upon the other defence, he thought it was a question...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loughnan v Barry and Byrne
...v. LaraELR L. R. 4 H. L. 64. The Reese Silver Mining Company v. SmithENR 1 H. & N. 503. Irving v. MotleyENR 7 Bing. 543. Noble v. AdamsENR 7 Taunt. 59. Hill v. PerrottENR 3 Taunt. 274. Abbotts v. Barry 5 B. Moo. 98. Perkins v. Smith 1 Wils. 328. Gompertz v. BartlettENR 2 E. & B. 849. Polehi......
-
White v Garden
...is this,-in the one case, the man who parts with the property makes a contract in fact; in the other, he does nothing.] In Noble v. Adams (7 Taunt. 59, 2 Marsh, 366), it was expressly held, that the obtaining of goods upon false pretences, under colour of purchasing them, does not change th......
-
Hudson v Slade and Others
...that, assuming the property to be in one person, the obtaining it by a. false pretence would not alter the property , Noble v Adams, 7 Taunt. 59 ; nor would a meie act of trespass, which, until acquiesced in, does not even give a lawful possession ; Brown v. Dawson, 11 Ad. & E 625 ; Gtllard......
-
Nicholls v Le Feuvre
...of them; Foster v. Frampton; or the purchaser's shipping them himself at a wharf on the way to their ultimate destination; Noble v. Adams (7 Taunt. 59). In Mills v. Ball Lord Alvanley said, " If in the course of the conveyance of the goods from the vendor to the vendee, the latter be allowe......
-
The Transfer of Moveables in Scotland and England
...century, fraud was treated in the same way as mistake: the contract was void and no title passed to the buyer.2525Noble v Adams (1816) 7 Taunt 59; Earl of Bristol v Wilsmore (1823) 1 B & C 514; Jones v Keene (1841) 2 M & R 348. In Earl of Bristol, for example, Abbott CJ said (at 521) that: ......