White v Garden
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 May 1851 |
| Date | 01 May 1851 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 138 E.R. 364
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 20 L. J. C. P. 166; 15 Jur. 630. Followed, Stevenson v. Newnham, 1853, 13 C. B. 302. See, In re Overend, Gurney & Co., 1867, L. R. 3 Eq. 629; L. R. 2 H. L. 325. Applied, Babcock v. Lawson, 1879-80, 4 Q. B. D. 400; 5 Q. B. D. 284. Referred to, In re Ward, 1882, 20 Ch. D. 364. Principle not interfered with, Bentley v. Vilmont, 1887, 12 App. Cas. 483.
[919] white v. garden. May 1, 1851. [S. C. 20 L. J. C. P. 166; 15 Jur. 630. Followed, Stevenson v. Neumham, 1853, 13 C. B. 302. See, In re Overeiid, Gurney & Co., 1867, L. E. 3 Eq. 629; L. E. 2 H. L. 325. Applied, BabcocTc v. Lawsm, 1879-80, 4 Q. B. D. 400 ; 5 Q. B. D. 284. Eeferred to, In re Ward, 1882, 20 Ch. D. 364. Principle not interfered with, ~ " - v. Fttmont, 1887, 12 App. Cas. 483.] A contract for the sale of goods, obtained by fraud on the part of the purchaser, is void only at the election of the vendor; and it is too late to declare such election after the goods have passed into the hands of a bona fide purchaser. Trover for iron. Pleas,-first, not guilty,-secondly, not possessed. At the trial, before Jervis, C. J., at the sittings in London, after the last term, the evidence disclosed the following facts :- One Parker, in August, 1850, bought of the defendants seventy tons of iron, paying for it 831. in cash, and giving a bill for the residue, 1131. 14s., purporting to be accepted by one Thomas, a seedsman at Eochester. Parker afterwards sold the iron to the plaintiff, to whom it was, by Parker's order, delivered by the defendants. On the 1st of October, Parker made a further purchase of fifty tons of iron from the defendants, for which he gave them a bill also purporting to be accepted by Thomas. This second parcel of iron was likewise sold by Parker to the plaintiff, and was forwarded to the plaintiff's wharf on the 4th of October, by one Eiddell, the defendants' lighterman, pursuant to a delivery order signed by Parker on the 3rd. IOC. B. 920. WHITE V. GARDEN 365 The barge containing the fifty tons was left, with the delivery order, by Kiddell, alongside the plaintiff's wharf, to be unloaded. Subsequently, the defendants, having discovered that the supposed acceptor of the bills was a fictitious person, and that they had been defrauded, sent Kiddell to the plaintiff's wharf to get back the iron. Eiddell accordingly took away the lighter, with twenty-nine tons of the iron which remained therein: and the defendants gave the plaintiff notice of the fraud, and desired him not to part with any of the iron in his possession purchased of Parker. [920] The purchases were bona fide on the part of the plaintiff, and had been made at the fair market price, and through the intervention of a broker. It appeared that Parker had given the defendants a false address : but it did not appear that the defendants had made any inquiry either about him or the acceptor of the bills, until after the iron had been sent by them to the plaintiff's wharf. On the part of the defendants, it was insisted, that, the transaction being a fraud on the part of Parker, no property in the iron passed to him, and consequently none could be acquired by his vendee, though no party to the fraud. For the plaintiff, it was submitted, that the right in the original vendors to rescind the sale, was at an end when the goods had come to the hands of a bona fide purchaser for value. The lord chief justice left four questions to the jury,-first, whether the plaintiff had purchased the iron from Parker, bona fide,-secondly, whether there had been a delivery of the iron by the defendants to the plaintiff,-thirdly, whether Parker had obtained the iron animo furandi,-fourthly, whether he had obtained it by fraud. The jury answered the first two questions in the affirmative, and the third in the negative : but, as to the fourth, they said they could not agree in finding fraud, though they were all of opinion that Parker never intended to pay...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loughnan v Barry and Byrne
...Moo. 414. Moore v. BushellUNK 27 L. J. Ex. 3. Williams v. EverettENR 14 East, 581. Baron v. HusbandENR 4 B. & Ad. 611. White v. GardenENR 10 C. B. 919. Kingsford v. MerryENRENR 1 H. & N. 503; 11 Ex. 577. Masters v. IbbersonENR 8 C. B. 100. Childers v. WoolerENR 2 E. & E. 267. Street v. Blay......
-
The Joint Stock Companies Winding-up Acts, 1848 and 1849, and The Royal British Bank Mixer's Case
...A contract cannot be rescinded on the ground of fraud when the parties can no longer be replaced in xtatu [uo ; White, v. Garden (10 C. B. 919); Stevenson v. Neimham (13 C. B. 285). 228 WILSON V. KEATING 4DEO.&J.JM. Mr. L. Field, in reply. THE lord chancellor. I am of opinion that the Appel......
-
Biddle against Bond
...the contract is voidable only at the election of the vendor; Load v. Green (15 M. & Wi 216). [BFackburn J. referred to White v. Garden (10 C. B. 919.] In an action for use and occupation, a tenant cannot set up the claim of a mortgagee; Litton r. Sunn (17 Q. B. 294); and in Eickman v. Machi......
-
Pease v Gloahec; The "Marie Joseph"
...is too late to declare such election after the goods have passed into the hands of a bona fide purchaser without notice: White v. Garden (10 C.B. 919); Parker v. Patrick (5 T.K. 175); Kingsford v. Merry (11 Ex. 577 ; S.C. 1 H. and N. 503); Stevenson v. Newman (3 Camp. 92), where all the cas......