The Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Newport against Saunders
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 April 1832 |
| Date | 19 April 1832 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 148
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 1 L. J. K. B. 147.
the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of newport against saunders. Thursday, April 19th, 1832. Assumpsit may be maintained by the owner of a market, for stallage, and that without shewing any contract in fact between him and the occupier of the stall. [S. C. 1 L. J. K.B. 147.] Assumpsit for tolls and stallage. At the trial before Park J., at the Spring Assizes for Winchester 1832, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs on the count for stallage, with Is. damages; and were discharged of the issue as to the tolls. Coleridge Serjt. now moved for a rule to enter a nonsuit, on the ground that in the absence of evidence of any contract in fact, either express or to be implied, assumpsit was not maintainable for stallage. In The Mayor of Northampton v. Ward (2 Str. 1239. 1 Wils. 115), it was said by the Court, " That trespass was the proper form of action, and that neither debt nor assumpsit would lie " (for stallage); " nor could the owner of the soil distrain, because there [412] is not any certain fixed sum or duty, or contract express or implied." Here the evidence shewed that there was no contract for stallage. Assumpsit for use and occupation may be maintained, because there is an implied contract to pay what the value may be found to be; but there is no such implied contract in the case of stallage. And there is no analogy between the two cases. In the ordinary case of occupation of land for agricultural or other purposes, the owner of the land may exercise an option ; and therefore, where the fact is found, a contract may well be presumed ; a permission on the part of the owner, and an acceptance of a demise on that of the tenant; but, in the case of a stallage, the owner of the market has no option ; he must permit the public to resort to the market, and cannot refuse to any one the right to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coryton and Another v Lithebye
...by the owner of a market, for stallage, and that without shewing any contract in fact between him and the occupier of the stall. 3 B. & Ad. 411, Mayor of Newport v. Saunders. See further as to actions for disturbance of markets and evasion of tolls, post, 172, d seq., notes to Yard v. Ford.......
-
Lockwood against Wood
...a market, and that " no man can erect stalls in a market, without leave of the owner of the *oil." In Mayor, &c. of Newport v. Saunders (3 B. & Ad. 411), Littledale J. said that " stallage is a satisfaction to the owner of the soil for the liberty of placing a stall upon it:" and he treated......
-
Churchward and Blight v Ford
...S. y. B 295 See also, per Parke, B, Turner v. Uameion's Coal-brook Steam Coal Company, 5 Exch. 932, 937 ^ Mayor of Newpotl v. Saundeis, 3 B. & Ad. 411. 186 HUNT V. NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY 2 fl. & N. 450, case put by him, a person may be liable without proof of actual contract, b......
-
Standen against Chrismas and Another
...(I T. R. 378), and Eennie v. Robinson (1 Bing. 147), are authorities for the present action. In Mayor, &e,. of Newport v. Saitnders (3 B. & Ad. 411), it was objected that the plaintiffs as owners of a market could not maintain assumpsit for stallage, for that the owner of a market [140] had......