Phillips against Bistolli
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1824 |
| Date | 01 January 1824 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 107 E.R. 474
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 3 D. & R. 822; 2 L. J. K. B. O. S. 116. Not applied, Maberly v. Sheppard, 1833, 10 Bing. 102. Distinguished, Tomkinson v. Staight, 1856, 17 C. B. 699.
[511] phillips against bistolli. 1824. By the conditions of a sale by auction, the purchaser was to pay 30 per cent, upon the price, upon being declared the highest bidder, and the residue before the goods were removed. A lot was knocked down to A., as the highest bidder, and delivered to him immediately. After it bad remained in his hands three or four minutes, he stated that he had been mistaken in the price, and refused to keep it. No part of the price had been paid : Held, that it was a question of fact for the jury, whether there had been a delivery by the seller, and an actual acceptance by the buyer, intended by both parties to have the effect of transferring the right of possession from one to the other. [S. C. 3 D. & E. 822 ; 2 L. J. K. B. O. S. 116. Not applied, Maberly v. Sheppard, 1833, 10 Bing. 102. Distinguished, Tomkinsm v. Staight, 1856, 17 C. B. 699.] Assumpsit for goods sold. Plea, non-assumpsit. At the trial before Abbott C.J. at the Middlesex sittings after Hilary term, 1823, the following appeared to be the facts of the case. The plaintiff was an auctioneer, and in July, 1822, had put up for sale, among several other articles, a pair of ear-rings, the property of a jeweller, described in the catalogue as brilliant top and drop ear-rings; one of the conditions of sale was, that the purchaser should pay 30 per cent, upon being declared the highest bidder, and the residue of the price before the goods were removed. The defendant was a foreigner, and did not fully understand the English language; but he was in the habit of attending the plain-tiff's sales, and purchasing goods. On the day in question he attended, and bought several lots, and the ear-rings in question were knocked down to him as the highest bidder, at the price of 88 guineas. They were immediately delivered to him, and he received them without making any objection. After they had been in his hands three or four minutes, a person who interpreted for him said to the plaintiff that the defendant had bid for the lot in question under a mistaken idea that the price at which it was knocked down to him was 48 guineas. The plaintiff said that the last bidding had been mentioned three times. The defendant then returned the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beaumont v Brengeri
...Tempest v. Fitzgerald (3 B. & Aid. 680), Bushel v. Wheeler (8 Jurist. 532), Norman v. Phillips (14 M. & W. 277), Phillips v. Bristolli (2 B. & C. 511, 3 D. & E. 822), and Hanson v. Armitage (5 B. & Aid. 557, 1 D. & E. 128); and upon the second, Williams v. Paul (6 Bingh. 653, 4 M. & P. 532)......
-
Tomkinson and Johnson v Staight
...the terms of the contract on oral testimony. This precise objection seems to be taken now for the first time. In Phillips v. Bistolli,. 2 B. & C. 511, 3 D. & E. 822, which was cited on moving for this rule, the facts were these:-By the conditions of a sale by auction, the purchaser was to p......
-
Edan against Dudfield
...acceptance was insufficient, on the authority of Hanson v. Armitage (5 B. & Aid. 557. 1 D. & E. 128). In Phillips v. Bistolli (2 B. & C. 511), it is laid down that the jury must be satisfied of a delivery and an actual acceptance. Cur. adv. vult. Lord Denman C.J., in this term (January 12th......
-
Malins v Freeman
...refusal to pay the same, such bidding is declared by the act to be null and void to all intents and purposes." In Phillips v. Bistolli (2 B. & C. 511), where a purchaser returned at an auction an article before he had paid any portion of the price, alleging that he had made a mistake in his......