Phillimore and Others v Barry and another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1808 |
| Date | 01 January 1808 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1040
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
[513] Same day. phillimoke and others v. barry and another (Where goods were sold by auction to an agent, the auctioneer wrote the initials, of the agent's name, together with the prices, opposite the lots purchabed by him m the printed catalogue ; and the principal afterwards, in a letter to the agent, recognised the purchase. Held, that the entry in the catalogue, and the letter, coupled together, were a sufficient memorandum of the contract within the Statute of Frauds. If goods are sold, to be paid for in thirty days, and if not earned away at the end of that time, warehouse rent to be paid for them,- the property m the goods vests absolutely in the purchaser, and they remain ai his risk from the moment of the sale ) This was an action for goods sold, to recover the price of 13 puncheons of rum. The cargo of a Danish prize, of which the rum in question formed a part, was lodged in the warehouses of Messrs. Fector and Minet, at Dover, and was sold by auction in various lots, on the 28th of April, 1808. By the conditions of sale, a deposit of 25 per cent, was to be paid immediately, and the remainder of the purchase-money in thirty days. At the end of that time the purchasers were to carry away the goods, or were afterwards to pay warehouse rent Before the day of sale, the defendants had written to Messrs. Fector and Minet to buv thirteen puncheons of this prize rum for them Accordingly, Mr. John Minet Fector, one of that hrm, bid for several lots, which were knocked down to him, and amounted to the quantity req_uired. The auctioneer, opposite to each of these lots, wrote down in his printed catalogue the price for which they sold, and the initials I. M. F. meaning John Minet Fector. On the llth of May, the defendants wrote a letter to Messrs. Fector and Minet, recognising and approving of this purchase But on the 18th ot the same month the warehouses, in which the rum was, accidentally caught fire , and by means of a quantity of gunpowder lodged m them, were blown [514] into the air with a tremendous explosion -There was no evidence of the deposit being paid Garrow, for the defendants, stated two grounds on which, he contended, his clients were not liable. 1. The contract was void under the Statute of Frauds. The * Tn Came v. Coleman, 1 Salk. 109, it is said that by 21 Jac I. c 19, the act of bankruptcy is from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- TAC Construction & Trading v Bennes Engineering Bhd
-
Graham and Others v Musson
...Taunt. 295), White v. Procter (4 Taunt. 209), Ken-worthy v. Schofield (2 B. & C. 945), Hick's v. Hankin (4 Esp. 114), Phillimare v. Barry (1 Campb. 513). In Champion v. Pit/miner (1 N. E. 252), the note was signed by the seller only. In Cooper v. Smith (15 East, 103), it was written in the ......
-
Maxwell v Parnell
...& B. 647. Marston v. Roe 8 A. & E. 14. White v. ProctorENR 4 Taunt. 209. Kenworthy v. SchofieldENR 2 B. & C. 945. Phillimore v. BarryENR 1 Camp. 513. Lord v. Hall 8 C. R. 627. Flureau v. Thornhill 2 W. Bl. 1078. Duckley v. DawsonUNK 4 Ir. C. L. 211. Hopkins v. GrasebrookENR 6 B. & C. 31. Ro......
-
Salter v Woolams and Anothers
...any interest in the property. They were mere wrongdoers, the possession in law passing when the property passes. In Phittimore v. Barry (1 Campb. 513), goods were sold to be paid for in thirty days, and if not then removed to be liable to warehouse rent; and it was held that the property ve......
-
The Transfer of Moveables in Scotland and England
...for payment was settled. Three cases from the early nineteenth century – Hinde v Whitehouse,77(1806) 7 East 558. Phillimore v Barry88(1808) 1 Camp 513. and Tarling v Baxter99(1827) 6 B & C 360. – show clearly the rule that property passes when the contract is made. The facts of all three ca......
-
Electronic signatures in practice.
...8 Ves Jun 185; 32 ER 324. (2.) In re Reddings Goods (1850) 14 Jur 1052; 2 Rob Ecc 338; 163 ER 1338. (3.) Phillimore v Barry 1 Camp 512; 170 ER 1040. (4.) In re Schultz, (1984) 8 DLR (4th) 147. (5.) Lobb and Knight v Stanley (1844) 5 QB 574; 114 ER 1366. (6.) Cohen v Roche [1927] 1 KB 169. (......