Pickering against Truste and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 November 1796 |
| Date | 23 November 1796 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 850
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
3 M. & S. 525.
pickering against trusts and another. Wednesday, Nov. 23d, 1796. Under certain circumstances the Court will stay the proceedings in an action of trespass for seizing goods, on the defendant's restoring the goods, or paying the full value of them, with the costs of the action. [3 M. & S. 525.] Trespass against the defendants who had seized fourteen hides, as viewers and searchers of leather, under statute 2 Jac. 1, c. 22. The defendants, finding they could not justify the seizure, the leather having been improperly seized, applied to the plaintiff's attorney to settle the matter, offering to pay the price of the goods and the costs of the action ; to which the attorney said, that the leather was but worth 101. and that the plaintiff only wished to recover the value, but that he had no authority from th,e plaintiff to compromise, and theref ore-he referred them to the plaintiff himself. The plaintiff, on an application to him, said that he had left the matter to his attorney ; and on a subsequent refusal by the plaintiff to accept the value [54] of the goods and the costs, a rule was obtained, before declaration delivered, calling on the plaintiff to shew cause why on the defendant's undertaking to restore the leather or to pay the value of it to the plaintiff, together with the costs of the action, all further proceedings should not be stayed. Erskine now shewed cause against that rule ; and said, that it appeared that the plaintiff never consented to take the sum proposed, and that this application could not be granted without his consent, the precise value of the goods taken, not being necessarily the criterion by which the jury must be bound ; that the quantum of damages to be recovered, must depend on the circumstances of the seizure, and the inconvenience suffered by the plaintiff: and that as the declaration was not yet delivered, the plaintiff might perhaps introduce in it a per quod, and seek to recover serious damages, of the quantum of which the Court were not the proper judges. Lord Kenyon, Ch.J. (stopping Gibbs, the Recorder, the Common Serjeant, and Dampier, in support of the rule). Formerly (a)2 such an application as the present, would not have been successful. The Court, in answer to an application to bring goods into Court, used to say they had no warehouse for such purpose ; and the rule was confined to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smyth v Latham
...admissions, by which it waa amongst (a) Vide flicker v. Wright, 3 Bing. 601 ; Earlev. Holderne.ss, 4 Bing. 462 ; Pickering v. Truste, 7 T. R. 53. 518: SMYTH V. LATHAM 1C.&M.M9. other things admitted, that the plaintiff had given the requisite security for the due execution of the office, an......