Saunderson v Rowles

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date21 May 1767
Date21 May 1767
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 98 E.R. 77

IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH

Saunderson
and
ers. Rowles

See 6 Ves. 3. 3. Wils. 146. Buller, 39. 1 Durn. 572.

saunderson vers. rowles. (S. C. cited 1 Brown, 1771. 1 Durn.) Thursday 21st May, 1767. Victuallers as such, not within the bankrupt laws. [See 6 Ves. 3. 3 Wils. 146. Buller, 39. 1 Durn. 572.] Upon a trial before Lord Mansfield at Guildhall, in an action of trover brought by a creditor of a victualler, claiming under a bill of sale made to him by the victualler, before the victualler had committed any act of bankruptcy; against the defendant who claimed the same goods under the assignment of the commissioners, aa part of the bankrupt's estate and effects : this question arose- [2065] " Whether a victualler who does not exceed the ordinary course of that occupation, but uses it just in the same manner as other victuallers generally do, be a trader within the idea of the bankrupt laws,* so as to be liable to a commission of bankruptcy." A verolict was found for the plaintiff, and 31 damages, subject to the opinion of this Court. On Saturday the 9th of this month, a motion was made by Mr. Serjeant Davy, on behalf of the defendant, for a rule to shew cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and judgment entered for the defendant. Rule to shew cause. Sir Fletcher Norton and Mr. Mansfield, yesterday, shewed cause against the rule. The usage and practice of late years has extended bankruptcies beyond the intention of the law. In the present commission, this man was called victualler, dealer and chapman. If he was a dealer, there is indeed no doubt in the case : but there was no evidence, at the trial, of his being dealer or chapman ; only that he was a victualler. And as such, he is not an object of the bankrupt laws. A victualler only exercises a calling, (for it cannot be called a trade,) by permission ; by a licence : and the object of his [dealing is under a restraint; he is obliged to sell at the price put upon his goods by the magistrates; he is obliged to receive soldiers. The reasons why an inn-keeper can not be made a bankrupt, are laid down in the case of Newton versus Trigg, 3 Mod. 329. He buys and sells under restraint and particular limitation. His calling is of necessity, and he is under the inspection of the public and the power of justices. He does not deal upon contracts, as other traders do. What he buys is to a particular intent: for, 'tis to spend in his house; and though he gets his living...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • The King (Martin) v Mahony
    • Ireland
    • King's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 30 June 1910
    ...C.B., and Gibson, Madden, Boyd, Kenny, Wright, and Dodd, JJ. (1) 22 L. R. Ir. 98. (2) Ibid. 500. (3) Ibid. 504, note (1) 2 Burr. 1163. (2) 4 Burr. 2064. (3) 3 Law Rec. (N. S.) 190, (4) 3 Mod. 95. (5) 6 T. R. 375. (6) Ibid. 177. (7) 8 T. R. 588. (1) 28 L. R. Ir. 440. (2) 4 A. & E. 698. (3) 1......
  • Newton against Trigg
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 1 January 1794
    ...307, 344, 420, 591. Ld. Ray. 287, 852. 1 Stra. 513. 2 Stra. 809. 2 Peer. Wms. 308. 3 Peer. Wms. 298. 'l Com. Dig. 521. 2 Wils. 170, 382. 4 Burr. 2064, 2148. 1 Atk. 141. 2 Bl. Com. 476. 1 Cooke's B. L. 46. Trespass for breaking and entering of his close, treading down of his grass, &c. and t......
  • The King against The Inhabitants of Hornsey
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 1 January 1796
    ...Justice is made to say, that " though an inn-keeper cannot be a bankrupt, yet a victualler may." But in the case of Saunderson v. Raivles, 4 Burr. 2064, it is determined that "a victualler who sella liquors in his house, and only sells them out of the house in small retail quantities, as ev......

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