Pigot v Thompson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 May 1802 |
| Date | 24 May 1802 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 127 E.R. 80
Common Pleas Division
80 PIGOTT V. THOMPSON 3 SOS. it PUL. 146. evidence of the contents of the bill of exchange was unquestionably to be derived from the production of the bill itself, But the production of the certificate of registry could in this case have answered no purpose whatever, the only question being, Whether the Defendant wrongfully detained the certificate from the Plaintiffs or not? It seems to me therefore no violation of the rules of evidence to admit proof of the existence of the certificate, in order to charge the Defendant with a tortious conversion of that instrument. HEATH J. There is a material difference between an action of assumpsit on a promise contained in an instrument in writing and an action of trover for the instru- merit itself. In the former the promise must be proved as laid, and consequently can be best ,proved by inspection of the instrument ; in the latter the gist (146] of the action is the tort. Undoubtedly if a party unnecessarily take upon himself to describe the instrument he must prove his description. But that is not the case here. In fact the original was produced, and that which the Defendant insists ought to have been produced was only a copy. ROOKE J. This action is brought to recover from the Defendant the property in a specific thing, and therefore I think the evidence received at the trial was properly received. Where a written instrument is to be used as a medium of proof by which a claim to a demand arising out of the instrument is to be supported, there I admit the instrument itself must be produced, or notice to produce it must have been given to the Defendant before any evidence of its contents can be received. But this being an action of trover for the certificate of registry itself, I can see no sound reason why evidence should not be admitted of the existence of the certificate in the same manner as evidence of a picture or other specific thing is constantly admitted where it is sought to be recovered in the same form of action. It is true that if a party take upon himself to describe the contents of the instrument, he must prove it as he describes.it. In this case it was not possible for the Defendant to entertain a doubt what was the thing demanded, there being but one certificate of registry to a ship existing at any one period. The original registry, which is a kind of duplicate of the certificate, was produced, and the certificate itself being in the possession of the Defendant, it was in his power to produce it and shew that the Plaintiff's evidence respecting the certificate was not correct, if that had been the case. CHAMBRE J. There is an essential difference, as I conceive, between the mode of proving a very general or a very minute description of a written instrument. The rule undoubtedly is, that no evidence can be received of the contents of a written instrument but the instrument itself, But in this case the Plaintiffs declared in trover for a written instrument describing it generally, and riot referring to its contents, of which evidence could not have been received, as no notice had been given to the Defendant to produce the instrument itself. I think therefore the evidence was properly admitted. Rule discharged. (147] PIGOTT V. THOMPSON. May 24th, 1802. A. agreed in writing to pay the rent of certain tolls, which he had hired, "to the treasurer of the Commissioners ;" held that no action for the rent could be main- tained in the name of the treasurer*. This was an action of assumpsit tried at the last assizes for Cambridgeshire before Mr. Justice Grose, when a verdict was found for the Plaintiff with 631. Is. 6d. damages, subject to the opinion of the Court on the following case : " By three acts of Parliament of the 33 Geo. 2...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hybart v Parker
...who might happen to be purser at the time of the making of the call or at the time of bringing the action. In Pigott v. Thompson, 3 Bos. & P. 147, where A. agreed in writing to pay the rent of certain tolls which he had hired, ''to the treasurer of .the: commissioners,"-it was held that no ......