Pickard against Sears and Barrett
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1837 |
| Date | 01 January 1837 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 179
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 2 N. & P. 488. Followed, Gregg v. Wells, 1839, 10 Ad. & E. 97. Distinguished, Sandys v. Hodgson, 1839, 10 Ad. & E. 476. Qualified, Freeman v. Cooke, 1848, 6 D. & L. 190. Discussed, Howard v. Hudson, 1853, 2 El. & Bl. 10; Jorden v. Money, 1854, 5 H. L. C. 213. Report corrected, Bill v. Richards, 1857, 3 Jur. N. S. 522; 2 H. & N. 549. Qualified, Simpson v. Accidental Death Insurance Company, 1857, 2 C. B. N. S. 289. Discussed, Clarke v. Hart, 1858, 6 H. L. C. 654. Applied, Cornish v. Abington, 1859, 4 H. & N. 555. Not applied, Swan v. North British Australasian Company, 1863, 2 H. & C. 177. Referred to, Harding v. Hall, 1866, 14 L. T. 410; Phillips v. Im Thurn, 1866, L. R. 1 C. P. 472. Applied, In re Bahia and San Francisco Railway, 1868, L. R. 3 Q. B. 594. Referred to, Webb v. Herne Bay Commissioners, 1870, L. R. 5 Q. B. 650; Stimson v. Farnham, 1871, L. R. 7 Q. B. 180; Goddard v. Smith, 1872, L. R. 3 P. & D. 10; Morrison v. Universal Marine Insurance Company, 1873, L. R. 8 Ex. 206; Citizens' Bank of Louisiana v. First National Bank of New Orleans, 1873, L. R. 6 H. L. 360; Walrond v. Hawkins, 1875, L. R. 10 C. P. 352; Shropshire Union Railways and Canal Company v. R. 1875, L. R. 7 H. L. 515; Goodwin v. Robarts, 1876, 1 App. Cas. 490; Wadling v. Oliphant, 1875, 1 Q. B. D. 149; Polak v. Everett, 1876, 1 Q. B. D. 673; Rumball v. Metropolitan Bank, 1877, 2 Q. B. D. 198; Johnson v. Crdit Lyonnaise, 1877, 3 C. P. D. 40; Simm v. Anglo-American Telegraph Company, 1879, 5 Q. B. D. 204; Alderson v. Maddison, 1880-83, 5 Ex. D. 296; 7 Q. B. D. 174; 8 App. Cas. 467; Roe v. Mutual Loan Fund, 1887, 19 Q. B. D. 351. Not applied, Colonial Bank v. Cady, 1890, 15 App. Cas. 292. Referred to, Low v. Bouverie, [1891] 3 Ch. 101; Ex parte Harrison, 1893, 69 L. T. 207; Henderson v. Williams, [1895] 1 Q. B. 533; Bechuanaland Exploration Company v. London Trading Bank, [1898] 2 Q. B. 677; Palmer v. Moore, [1900] A. C. 298; Farquharson v. King, [1901] 2 K. B. 717; [1902] A. C. 325.
pickard against sears and barrett. 1837. In an actirfn of trover^l Appeared that, plaintiff being the legal owner of the goods in question, they were seized while in the actual possession of a third party, under an execution against such/ third party, and sold to defendant. Held that, under a plea denying plaintiff's possession, defendant might shew that plaintiff authorised the sale ; and that a jury might infer such authority from the plaintiff consulting with the execution creditor as to the disposal of the property, without mentioning his own claim, after he knew of the seizure and of the intention to sell. [S. C. 2 N. & P. 488. Followed, Gregg v. Wells, 1839, 10 Ad. & E. 97. Distinguished, Sandys v. Hodgson, 1839, 10...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
- AETNA Universal Insurance Bhd (No 1); Teo Kim Huatt
-
Philips v Medical Council
...MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 1978 4TH SCH MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 1978 S27(2)(b) MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 1978 S38 PICKARD V SEARS (1837) 6 A & E 469 PHIPSON EVIDENCE 13TH ED 1063–1067 WEBB V IRELAND 1989 ILRM 566 AMALGAMATED INVESTMENT & PROPERTY CO LTD V TEXAS COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL BANK ......
- Al Sharhan Sdn Bhd and Another v Edipro Construction & Engineering
-
McMullen v Clancy
...case, Bloomfield Village District -v- O'Keefe ( 119F.2.d157) which concerned a recital in a municipal bond; and Pickard -v- Sears [1837] 6 A.&E. 469 which concerned an estopped in the case of a Plaintiff who sought to recover property where the Defendant alleged that he, the Plaintiff, had ......
-
Consumer Redress Legislation: Simplifying or Subverting the Law of Contract
...test of causation.58 Gould vVaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 214, 238 per Wilson J.59 See, for example, Pickard vSears (1837) 6 Ad & E 469; 112 ER 179; Smith vChadwick (1884) 9App Cas 187 (House of Lords); Hayward vZurich Insurance Company plc [2016] UKSC 48.60 Barton vArmstrong [1976] AC 104, 118–2......
-
Hopes, Expectations and Revocable Promises in Proprietary Estoppel
...Estoppel’i n P. S. Atiyah,Essays on Contract (Oxford:Clarendon Press,1986)275.68 PickardvSears (1837) 6 A & E 469, 474.69 See EvansvBicknell (1801) 6 Ves Jun 174, 183 and BurrowesvLock (1805) 10 Ves Ju n 470, 475.70 See De BielvThomson (1841)3 Beav 469,478; Hammersley vDe Biel(1845) 12Cl & ......