White against Teal
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1840 |
| Date | 01 January 1840 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 113 E.R. 751
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
white against teal. 1840. Issue being joined upon a plea of not guilty, in trover, and plaintiff having proved property, demand, and refusal, defendant offered to prove a lien. Held not admissible on this issue, under R. Gen. Hil. 4 W. 4, Pleadings in Particular Actions, IV. 1, because such evidence would contradict the inducement in the declaration, alleging that plaintiff was possessed. Trover for a box of clothes, of which the declaration alleged the plaintiff to have been lawfully possessed as of his own property. Plea, not guilty. On the trial, before Lord Denman C.J., at the London sittings after Trinity term, 1838, it appeared that the goods were the property of the plaintiff, who occupied apartments in the defendant's house, and, upon quitting the apartments, left the clothes there. A demand and refusal wera proved. The defence was, that the plaintiff, on going away, had told the defendant that he might retain the clothes till the plaintiff paid him the rent due for the apartments, which rent had not been paid or tendered. The Lord Chief Justice was of opinion that this defence could not be proved under the [107] plea of not guilty : and he directed a verdict for the plaintiff, reserving leave to move to enter a verdict for the defendant. In Michaelmas term, 1838, Platt obtained a rule accordingly. In Easter term, 1840 (a), Kelly and Bagley shewed cause. The lien could not be given in evidence under the plea of not guilty. That plea admits the lawful possession of the plaintiff, but denies the conversion. In Reg. Gen. Hil. 4 W. 4, Pleadings in Particular Actions, IV. lt the rule is generally laid down thus: "In actions on the case, the plea of not guilty shall operate as a denial only of the breach of duty, or wrongful act alleged to have baen committed by the defendant, and not of the facts stated in the inducement; and no other defence than such denial shall be admissible under that plea: all other pleas in denial shall take issue on some particular matter of fact alleged in the declaration." And, further, "in an action for converting the plaintiff's goods," the plea of not guilty will operate as a denial of " the conversion only, and not the plaintiffs title to the goods." The lawful possession of the plaintiff is alleged, in a declaration in trover, as inducement only : a lien requires the possession of the defendant, which therefore is inconsistent with what the inducement asserts. In Standiffe v. Hardtunck (2 C. M. & R. 1. 5 Tyrwh. 551), where this question was discussed but not decided, the Court said that the plea denied the fact of the conversion only, and did not enable the defendant to give evidence of its legality; and it is added, [108] " A doubt may, however, arise, as to the proper course to be pursued, (a) May 7th, 1840. Before Lord Denman C.J., Littledale, Patteson, and Coleridge Js 752 WHITE V. TEAL 12 AD. 6 B. 109. where the defendant has a lien on tbe goods, and there baa been only a refusal to deliver on demand by the plaintiff, which demand and refusal, it is well established, is not a conversion of itself, but only evidence of it, and may therefore be explained. The Court are not under the necessity of pronouncing any judgment upon this question at present; but nothing that has been said is to be taken as an intimation of an opinion, that in such a case, where there has been a refusal to deliver, on the ground ol lien, the right of lien need be specially pleaded." The plaintiff does not contend that the question might not be raised on a plea of not possessed ; because " lawfully possessed" means a present right of possession, with which a lien in the defendant is incompatible, though not incompatible with a property in the plaintiff. [Paiteaon J. It seems...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v Davis
...18 LJ Ex 317; Mitchell v Crassweller (1853) 22 LJ CP 100; Salter v Walker (1869) 21 LT 360. See also White v Teal (1840) 12 Ad & E 106 [ 113 ER 751], where evidence tendered by the defendant was inadmissible as contrary to an admission he had made by pleading not guilty to an action in trov......
-
Ringham against Clements
...previous to the taking by the defendant, the verdict was right, and the rule must be discharged. Rule discharged. (c) See White v. Teal, 12 A. & E. 106. ...
-
Rouch, Assignee of Orton and Paxton, Bankrupts, against The Great Western Railway Company
...3 M. & W. 362. See Wilson v. Norman, 1 Esp. 334. B M. & W. 139. That a lien is not evidence on the plea of not guilty, gee White v. Teal, 12 A. & E. 106. 1Q. B.82. BOUCH V. GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY 1053 to have adopted the rule, which Parka J. had laid down in Rawson v. Haigh (2 Bing. ......
-
Rastrich v Beckwith, Dye, and Kitton
...an assertion of sole seisin or sole possession. See Edwards v. Bishop of Exeter, 5 New Cases, 660; ante, 173, n. (a)2 See White v. Teal, 12 A. & E. 106. (b) The refusal being accompanied by a statement of the ground of that refusal, quaere whether the allegation of part-ownership would not ......