Reeve v Palmer
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 June 1858 |
| Date | 25 June 1858 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 141 E.R. 33
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 28 L. J. C. P. 168; 5 Jur. N. S. 916; 7 W. R. 325. Referred to, Wilkinson;v. Verity, 1871, L. R. 6 C. P. 211.
[84] reeve v. palmer. June 25th, 1858. [S. C. 28 L. J. C. P. 168 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 916 ; 7 W. R. 325. Referred to, Wilkinson ; v. Ferity, 1871, L. R. 6 C. P. 211.] It ia no answer for an attorney, when sued in detinue for a deed which has been iatrusted to him by a client, to say simply that he has lost it. Detinue for title-deeds, with a count for money received. To the first count the defendant pleaded, amongst other pleas, non detinet, and that the deeds were not the plaintiffs ; and to the second never indebted and a aet-off. Tke=cause was tried before Cockburn, C. J., at the last Spring Assizes at Cambridge. The faets were aa follows : - The defendant was an attorney at Cambridge. The deed* in respect of which the action was brought had been left in the defendant's custody as attorney for the plaintiff. At the trial, there was only one deed in contest between the parties, the rest having been delivered up to the plaintiff after the commencement of the action. There was no evidence as to what had become of the missing deed, or how it was lost, except that the defendant stated that he had not seen it since the date of its execution in 1853. When the demand was made in 1857, the defendant claimed a certain sum for costs, which the plaintiff paid under protest. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff on the second count, with 851. damages, and for the defendant upon the first count, the jury leaving it in doubt whether the lass of the deed ioecurred before or after the demand. D&vid Keane, for the plaintiff, in Easter Term last, obtained a rule calling upon the defendant to shew causa why a verdict should not be entered for the plaintiff on the issues on the first count, for 151. damages, pursuant to leave reserved to him at the ttial, on the grounds, - first, that the defendant, as the immediate bailee of the deed, was answerable in detinue though [85] he had lost the deed, - secondly, that the plaintiff was entitled to the verdict on the finding of the jury, as there was no evidence to shew that the loss was before the demand, and that the defendant ought to have shewn that to entitle him to the verdict. He referred to the Year Books 12 E. 4, fo. 12, and 10 H. 7, fo. 7, pi. 7, and to the case of Jones v. Dmole, 9 M. & W. 19. Wells, Serjt., for the defendant, also obtained a rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against evidence. Wells, Serjt;, and Couch, shewed cause against the plaintiff's rule. It may fairly be collected from the evidence that the deed was lost before the making of the demand. (a) In Swinfen. v. Swinfen, 24 Beavan, 559, the Master of the Rolls says : the question of Acquiescence, I go this length, - that, if a client be present in courtj and stand by and see his solicitor enter into terms of an agreement, and makes np objection whatever to it, he is not at liberty afterwards to repudiate it." C. P. xix.- 2 34 REEVE V. PALMER 5 C. B. N. S.) 86. The question is, whether detinue will under the circumstances lie. It is submitted that it will not In Southmtes cate, 4 Co. Rep. 83 b., it was resolved, that, " if A. accepts goods of B. to keep them as he would keep his own proper goods, there, if the goods are stolen, he shall not answer for them." In the note (A.) to that case, it is said: "That a general bailment and a bailment to be safely kept is all one was denied to be law by the whole court, ex relat. m'ri Bunb., note 3rd edit. 2 Ld. Raynl. Coggx v. Bernard, 911 : vide Jones on Bailments, 41, 83, in Kettle v. Sromsall, Willes, 121, Willes, C. J., in delivering the judgment of the court, observed, that, according to Southcote's case, the case of Caggs v. Bernard and several other cases, if the goods were delivered to be kept safely, though the defendant had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Gee Hup & Company v Yeo Swee Hern trading as Chop Yong Bee Huat
-
General and Finance Facilities Ltd v Cooks Cars (Romford) Ltd
...defendant was not in actual possession of the chattel at the time of the demand. (See Jones v. Dowle (1841) 9 Neeson & Welsby page 19; Reeve v. Palmer 5 Common Bench (New Series) page 84). Alternatively the plaintiff could sue in conversion for the actual wrongful delivery of the chattel to......
-
Morris v C. W. Martin & Sons Ltd
...any neglect or default or misconduct ofhimself or of any of the servants to whom he delegated his duty. This is clearly established by Reeve v. Palmer (1858) 5 Common Bench, New Series, p. 584, Coldman v. Hill, 1919, 1 King's Bench, p. 443, Buildings Scheme v. Post Office, 1965, 2 Weekly L......
-
Volcafe Ltd and Others v Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA (t/a CSAV)
...reasonable care of the goods or that any want of reasonable care did not cause the loss or damage sustained. As Cockburn CJ put it in Reeve v Palmer (1858) 5 CBNS 84, 90: “The jury have found that he lost it: and I am of opinion that that must be taken to mean, in the absence of any explana......