Pickard against Sears and Barrett

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1837
Date01 January 1837
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 179

IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH

Pickard against Sears and Barrett

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
98 cases
  • AETNA Universal Insurance Bhd (No 1); Teo Kim Huatt
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 2002
  • Philips v Medical Council
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 1 January 1992
    ...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
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 2021
  • McMullen v Clancy
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 31 July 2002
    ...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 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Consumer Redress Legislation: Simplifying or Subverting the Law of Contract
    • United Kingdom
    • Wiley The Modern Law Review No. 80-5, September 2017
    • 1 September 2017
    ...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
    • United Kingdom
    • Wiley The Modern Law Review No. 72-6, November 2009
    • 1 November 2009
    ...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 & ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT