Paul Felthouse v Bindley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 July 1862 |
| Date | 18 July 1862 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 142 E.R. 1037
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 31 L. J. C. P. 204; 6 L. T. 157; 10 W. R. 423.
paul feltiloune v. bindley. July 8th, 1802. " [S. C. 31 L. J. C. V. 204 ; 6 L. T. 157 ; 10 W. R. 423.] A. & B. verbally treated for the purchase of a horse by the former of the latter. A. few days afterwards, B. wrote to A. saying that he had been informed that there was a misunderstanding as to the price, A. having imagined that he had bought the horse for 301., B. that he had sold it for 30 guineas. A. thereupon wrote to B. proposing to split the difference, adding,-" If I hear no more about him, I consider the horse is mine at 301. Ifis." To this no reply was sent. No money was paid, and the horse remained in B.'s possession. Six weeks afterwards, the defendant, an auctioneer who was employed by B. to sell his farming stock, and wLo had been directed by B. to reserve the horse in question, as it had already been sold, by mistake put it up with the rest and solfl it. After the sale B. wrote to A. a letter which substantially amounted to an acknowledgment that the horse had been sold to him :-Held, that A. could not maintain an action against the auctioneer for the conversion of the horse, he having no property in it at the time the defendant sold it,-B.'s subsequent letter not having (as between A. and a stranger) any relation back to A.'s proposal. This was an action for the conversion of a horse. Fleas, not guilty, and not possessed. The cause was tried before Keating, J., at the last Hummer Assizes at Stafford, when the following facts appeared in evidence:-The plaintiff was a builder residing in London. The defendant was an auctioneer residing at Tamworth. Towards the close of the year 1869, John Felthouse, a nephew of the plaintiff, being iibout to sell hia farming stock by auction, a conversation took place between the uncle and nephew respecting the purchase by the former of a horse of the latter; and, on the 1st of January; I860. John Felthouse wrote to his uncle as follows :- "Bangley, January 1st, 1861. " Dear Sir,-I saw my father on Saturday. He told [870J me that you considered you had bought the horse for 301. If so, you are labouring under a mistake, for 30 ijuineas was the price I put upon him, and you never heard me say less. When you said you would have him, I considered you were aware of the price, as I would not take less. "Jotm fklthol'.sh;." The plaintiff on the following day replied as follows :- "London, January 2nd, 18G2. "Dear Nephew,-Your price, I admit, was 30 guineas. I offered 301.,-never offered more : and you said the horse was mine. However1, as there may be a mistake about him, I will split the difference,-301. 15s.-I paying all expenses from Tumworth. You can send him at your convenience, between now and the 25th of March. If I hear nq more about him, I consider the horse mine at 301. 15s. ò "paul feiytkoune." To this letter the nephew sent no reply ; and on the 25th of February the sale 1088 FELTHOUSE l\ BINDLEY 11 C. B. (N. S.)871. took place, the horse in question being sold with the rest of the stock, and fetching 33L, which sum was handed over to John Felthouse. On the following day, the defendant (the auctioneer), being apprised of the mistake, wrote to the plaintiff as follows :- "Tarnworth, February 26th, 1861. " Dear Sir,-I am sorry I am obliged to acknowledge myself forgetful in the matter of one of Mr. John Felthouso's horses. Instructions were given me to reserve the horae: but the lapse of time, arid a multiplicity of business pressing upon me, caused me to forget my previous promise. I hope you will...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schuldenfrei v Hilton (Inspector of Taxes)
... ... to the offeree that he could accept by doing nothing, as in another well known case Felthouse v BindleyENR (1862) 11 CBNS 869 where, I note, even though the offeree was told that he need not ... ...
-
Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association v Herman Iskandar and Another
... ... 34.Counsel relied on Felthouse v Bindley [1862] 11 CBNS 869 for the proposition that an offeror was not entitled to treat an ... ...
-
BP Oil International Ltd v Target Shipping Ltd [QBD (Comm)]
...with Mr. Cooper unequivocally evince such an intention. In a case like this it would be inconsistent with the principle in Felthouse v Bindley, (1862) CBNS 869 to regard BP's silence or inactivity as their acceptance of, or agreement to, any contractual arrangement. 213 I therefore conclude......
-
Meads v. Meads,
...(Nanaimo) Ltd., [1975] 3 W.W.R. 289; 54 D.L.R.(3d) 598 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 464]. Felthouse v. Bindley (1862), 11 C.B.(N.S.) 869; 142 E.R. 1037 (Ex Ch.), refd to. [para. Schiller, First Devenshire Building Corp. Ltd. and NuTowne Developments Inc. v. Fisher, Ru-More Investments Ltd. a......
-
Contract formation
...Constructions Pty Ltd v Andergrove Lakes Pty Ltd [2014] FCa 862 at [43], per Dowsett J. 112 Felthouse v Bindley (1862) 11 CB (nS) 869 [142 Er 1037]; Allied Marine Transport Ltd v Vale do Rio Doce Navegacao SA [1985] 1 WLr 925 at 937, per robert Gof LJ; Perfect Marble Co Ltd v Tao Yun Co Ltd......
-
Offer and Acceptance
...140 Ibid at 269. 141 Manchester Diocesan Council, above note 84 at 1597, Buckley J. 142 [1933] 3 DLR 577 (PC). 143 (1862), 11 CB (NS) 869, 142 ER 1037 (Ex Ch) [ Felthouse ]. Offer and Acceptance 75 damages for conversion relying on the auctioneer’s improper dealings with the horse intended ......
-
PROBLEMS IN THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF US CLASS ACTION JUDGMENTS IN SINGAPORE
...in England and Wales of United States Judgments in Class Actions”(2011) 52 Harv Int'l LJ 433 at 479–480. 75Felthouse v Bindley(1862) 142 ER 1037. 76 Adrian Briggs & Peter Rees, Civil Jurisdictions and Judgments (Informa, 5th Ed, 2009) at p 783. 77 See also Parsons v McDonald's Restaurants o......
-
GIFTS AND CONTRACTS : A COMPARISON WITH QUEBEC CIVIL LAW.
...(30) See e.g. Standing v Bowring, [1885] 31 Ch D 284 at 286, [1881-5] All ER Rep 702 (CA). Cf Felthouse v Bindley, [1862] EWHC CP J 35, 142 ER 1037 (Comm). Cf art 932, al 1 C civ ("[a]n inter vivos gift will only bind the donor, and will only produce effects of any kind, as and from the day......