Swire v Leach
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 January 1865 |
| Date | 29 January 1865 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 144 E.R. 531
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 34 L. J. C. P. 150; 11 L. T. 680; 11 Jur. N. S. 179; 13 W. R. 385. Followed, Miles v. Furber, 1873, L. R. 8 Q. B. 77. Referred to, Johnson v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, 1878, 3 C. P. D. 507; The Winkfield, [1902] P. 57.
[479] SwruK v. leach. Jan. 29th, 18(S5. [S. C. 34 I,. .1. C. P. 150 ; 11 L. T. 680 ; 11 .Fur. N. S. 179 ; 13 W. H. 385. Followed, Milex v. Furlif,r, 1873, L. It. 8 Q. B. 77. Referred to, Johnxon. v. Lancashire, and Yorkshire Railway, 1878, 3 C. P. 0. 507; Tim IVinkfiM, [1902] P. 57.] 1. U-oods deposited with a pawn-broker in the way of his trade, are privileged from distress; and this though they may have heen pledged more than twelve months. -2. And, held, that the proper measure of damages was, the value of the goods, and not merely that of the plaintiff's interest therein. This was an action of trover for goods which hud been deposited with the plaintiff in the way of his trade of a pawn-broker. The declaration alleged for special damage, injury to the plaintiff's trade, &c. Plea, not guilty by statute, the statute referred to in the margin being the 11 G. 2, c. 19, s. 21. The cause was tried before Pigott, B., at the last Assizes at Liverpool. It appeared that the plaintiff carried on the business of a pawn-broker at Manchester; and that, under a warrant of distress for rent in arrear, the defendant a^ broker seized amongst other things a quantity of unredeemed pledges, which it was contended on the part of the plaintiff were privileged from distress. There was conflicting evidence;as to the value of the articles so seized and so alleged to be protected, but, according to the evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses, they were worth between 301. and 351. On the part of the defendant it was insisted that unredeemed pledges in the hands of a pawn-broker are not privileged,-the protection only applying where the goods are in the hands of a person who has something to do to them in the way of his trade : and, as to the measure of damages, it was submitted that the plaintiff, at all events, was not entitled to recover the value of the goods themselves, but only the value of his interest in them: and, further that, assuming that the privilege existed, it was inapplicable to those goods which had been in pledge for more than twelve months, these being by the provisions of the Pawnbrokers Act, 39 & 40 (t, 3, c. 99, s. 17, forfeited: Walter v. Smith, 5 B. & Aid. 439, 1 I). & R. 1. The learned judge over-ruled the objection: and he [480] directed the jury to find for the plaintiff for the value of the goods so seized, distinguishing between those which had been pledged more and those which had been pledged less than a year. The jury accordingly returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 301., subject to a motion to enter a nonsuit, or to reduce the damages. Monk, Q. C., in Michaelmas Term last, obtained a rule calling upon the plaintiff to shew cause why a verdict should not be entered for the defendant, or a nonsuit; or for a new trial, on the ground that the learned judge misdirected the jury in 532 SWfRE V. LEACH 18 C. B. (N. S.)48l. holding that the plaintiff's goods were exempted from distress for rent; or why the damages should not be reduced bo such sum us the court should direct. W. Sandars and Holker now shewed cause. The goods in question are clearly privileged from distress, according to the second rule stated in the notes to Simpson t. Hartopp (Willes, 512), in 1 Smith's Leading Cases, 368, 373, -as being "things delivered to a person exercising a public trade, to be carried, wrought, worked up, or manpged in th£ way of his trade or employ." In Adams v. Grane, \ C. & M. 380, 387,; 3 Tyrwh. |)26,-where goods sent to the premises of an auctioneer for sale were heldi to be privileged,-Bay ley, J., in giving judgment, says: "The privilege in question has bepri established for a very considerable period of time. Lord Coke (Co, Litt.i 47 a.) tfeaits of it as being well known, and the principle of exemption, according to hjm, is that lit is for the benefit of trade. Among other instances put by him i^ the instance of 'goods going to a fair or market.' Now, why should they be! privileged? Th'ey are privileged because interest reipublicaj that buyer and seller should [481] be! brought together, that a man should have an opportunity of going to some particular place to which goods might be brought for the purpose of sale; and therefore it is one of the old established principles, that goods on their way to a fair, or on their way to a market, shall be privileged, for the benefit which results to the public from there being a settled place at which the articles may be bought. It is highly beneficial to the manufacturers of goods, to the handycraftmen, and to many others, who are encouraged to make goods at their own premises by the facility in disposing of them. Where will they be likely to dispose of them 1 Why, at those places to which purchasers will from time to time resort. They will resort to a fair or to a market; and therefore the privilege arid the exemption from distress at that place is of great importance to the person who is the proprietor or the original manufacturer of the goods. The privilege has from time to time been extended according to new modes of dealing established between parties; and one of the modern modes is the case of a factor ; and I should observe what is said by Mr. if ustice Blackstone ia his Commentaries (vol. 3, p. 8), that there is no hardship in the privilege which is allowed to exist in these cases, because the privilege generally arises to goods which no one could suppose to be the property of the individual from whom the rent was due. The rent is due in respect of premises for the hiring of which the person who acta in that place is the person amenable for the rent; and, if you were to seize the goods of a third person, you would enforce payment, not from the man who had contracted to pay, but from a perfect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The “Jag Shakti”
...v British Amsterdam Maritime Agency Ltd [1910] 16 Com Cas 102 (distd) Sewell v Burdick (1884) 10 App Cas 74 (folld) Swire v Leach (1865) 18 CB NS 479; 144 ER 531 (folld) Winkfield, The [1902] P 42 (folld) Bills of Lading Act 1855 (c 111) (UK) Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (c 60) (UK) s 503 Adm......
-
Scipion Active Trading Fund v Vallis Group Ltd (formerly Vallis Commodities Ltd)
...After citing Swire v Leach and The Winkfield, Lord Brandon continued: “Applying the general principle laid down in Swire v. Leach, 18 C.B.N.S. 479 and The Winkfield [1902] P. 42 to the present case, their Lordships reach the following result. First, the plaintiffs, as holders and endorsees ......
-
Worthington v Tipperary County Council
...I. J. R. 242. (2) 4 B. & Ad. 273, at p. 282. (1) 53 I. L. T. R. 25; [1920] 2 I. R. 143. (1) 2 Salkeld, 613. (2) 2 Siderfin, 44. (3) 18 C. B. (N. S.), 479. (4) [1902] P. (1) 13 P. D. 191, at p. 200. (1) 53 I. L. T. R. 25; [1920] 2 I. R. 143. (2) 20 Q. B. D. 494, at p. 504. (3) [1902] P. 42. ......
-
The Winkfield
...v. SnowENR 2 Wms. Saund. 47 f Burton v. HughesENR 2 Bingham, 173 Sutton v. BuckENR 2 Taunton, 302 Swire v. LeachENR 11 L. T. Rep. 680 18 C. B. N. S. 479 Turner v. HardcastleENR 5 L. T. Rep. 748 11 C. B. N. S. 683 Coggs v. BernardENR 2 Ld. Raym. 909 Ullman v. Bernard 73 Mass. Rep. 554 Parish......