Sowell against Champion, Nicholas Tolmie Tresidder, and White
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 January 1838 |
| Date | 31 January 1838 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 156
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 2 N. & P. 627; W. W. & D. 667; 7 L. J. Q. B. 197. Discussed, Rowles v. Senior, 1846, 8 Q. B. 683.
sowell against champion, nicholas tolmie tresidder, and white. Tuesday, January 31st, 1838. In trespass for taking goods under process, upon a regular judgment, but in a place to which the process did not run, the plaintiff may recover the whole value of the goods, and not merely the amount of damage which he has sustained by their being taken in a wrong place. The Court refused to grant a rule nisi for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against evidence, where the damages fell below 201., though the case was stated to be of general importance as relating to the boundaries of a jurisdiction. Attorneys (partners) delivered to a bailiff, for the purpose of being executed, a precept, issued from a local Court, indorsed with the attorneys' names, and directing a levy upon goods within the jurisdiction. The attorneys carried on business at Falmouth; and the party to be levied upon had had, for many years, a house and goods at Penryn, and was nob known to have a residence or property elsewhere. The levy was made in that house. The attorneys had sent a message to the debtor, as to the time at which the bailiff would levy; and the bailiff while levying, said that he was employed by those attorneys. In an action against them and the bailiff for unlawfully levying, the attorneys pleaded, 1. Not guilty : 2. A justification under the process : the bailiff pleaded the justification only : the plaintiff replied, that the house was not within the jurisdiction; and issues were joined thereon. Held, 1. That the attorneys were not entitled to an acquittal at the close of the plaintiff's case, in which the facts had appeared as above stated. 2. That, on the close of the whole case, nothing material having been added except that the defendants, (though they proved a regular judgment), failed to bring themselves within the jurisdiction, the ;Judge ought to have told the jury that there was no evidence to implicate the attorneys. And this, even assuming them to have known that the plaintiff intended levying at the house in question ; although, if they had known also that the house was beyond the jurisdiction, they might possibly have been considered joint trespassers with the bailiff. [S. C. 2 N. & P. 627; W. W. & D. 667 ; 7 L. J. Q. B. 197. Discussed, Bowks v. Senior, 1846, 8 Q. B. 683.] Trespass for breaking and entering plaintiffs dwelling-house, and taking his goods therein. Plea by Champion. That within the manor of Penryn Forryn, in Cornwall, there now is, and from time whereof, &c., hath been, a certain court of record holderi in and for the said manor, from three weeks to three weeks, before the steward of the said court, for the trying and determining of all personal actions and pleas of trespass on the case arising within the said manor, to be commenced by plaint in the said court to be levied : that one Robert Tresidder levied a plaint in the said [408] court against the said Richard Sowell (the now plaintiff) for causes of action arising within the jurisdiction, and such proceedings were thereupon had in that court, that R. Tresidder, by the judgment of that court, recovered in such plea against Sowell 111. 18s. 8d. for his damages, &c., as by the record, &o. : that R. Tresidder, for obtaining satisfaction of the same, sued out of the said court, according to the custom thereof, a precept directed to the bailiff of the manor, and to the defendant Champion and two others, commanding them, and every and either of them, that of the goods and chattels of the said R. Sowell within the said manor they or one of them should cause to be levied the damages aforesaid, which the said R. Tresidder had recovered; and which precept, before the delivery thereof to Champion, was duly indorsed to 8 AD. & E. 409. SOWELL V. CHAMPION 157 levy the whole, with incidental charges, &c. : that the precept was delivered to Champion, who waa the bailiff of the manor and an officer of the said court, to be executed : by virtue of which precept he, so being and as such bailiff, afterwards, &c., peaceably entered into the said dwelling-house, &c., the outer door being open, and the said dwelling-house being then situate in the said manor, and within the jurisdiction of the said court, in order to seize, &c., and did then and there seize, &c., the said goods, &c., the same then and there being in the said dwelling-house and within the said manor and jurisdiction, for the purpose of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peacock v Bell and Kendal
...illegal process, see 3 Wils. 368, Barker v. Braham. 3 Esp. 202, Sedley v. Sutherland. 6 B. & C. 38, Bates v. Pilling. 9 D. & R. 44, S. C. 6 A. & E. 407, Sowell v. Champion. 2 Nev. & P. 627, S. C. 8 A. & E. 449, Oodringtm, v. Lloyd. 1 Perr. & D. 157, S. C. As to the liability of the plaintif......
-
Green against Matthew Elgie and Toulmin
...Bates v. Pilling (6 B. & C. 38), and Bryant v. Glutton (1 M. & W. 408. Tyr. & Gr. 843); which latter case agrees with Sowell v. Champion (6 A. & E. 407). Lord Abinger differed from the rest of the Court in Bryant v. Glutton (1 M. & W. 408. Tyr. & Gr. 843), but for a reason not applicable he......
-
T. Power v Fleming and O'Donnell
...CompanyUNKELR 35 L. J. Ex. 97; L. R, 1 Ex. 184. Bates v. Reilly 6 B. & Cr. 38. Powell v. SalisburyENR 2 Y. & J. 391. Sowell v. Champion 6 A. & E. 407. Thynne v. Russell Jebb & Symes, 155. Lyons v. Martin 8 A. & E. 512. Childers v. WoolerUNK 29 L. J. Q. B. 129. Humphreys v. Pratt 2 Dow. & L.......
-
Codrington against Lloyd, Gent., one, &
...irregularity. The first defect may be unknown to him; he or his clerk must know of the other. (V) 6 B. & C. 38. See Sowell v. Champion, 6 A. & E. 407. (a) See Sedley v. Sutherland, 3 Esp. N. P. C. 202. Also Carrett v. Smallpage, 9 East, 330. 8AD.*B.fc CODRINGTON V. LLOYD 911 Williams J. The......