Williams v John Morris, David Davies, and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 June 1841 |
| Date | 03 June 1841 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 151 E.R. 1131
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 11 L. J. Ex. 126.
williams v. john morris, david davies, and othkks. Exch. of Pleas. June, .'!, 1 S41.-A licence is not implied by law to the purchaser of goods, (though sold under an execution or distress,) to enter upon the premises of the former owner and take them away, although they have remained there with his assent. To support a plea of leave and licence to an action of trespass for biking away goods under such circumstances, there must be proof of an express agreement that the puchaser should enter on the premises and take the goods.-Quiere, whether thoro can be an irrevocable licence to enter upon land, without its amounting tn an interest in land, which therefore can pass only by deed. [S. C. 11 L. J. Ex. 126.] Trespass for breaking and entering the plaintiff's house, barn, stable, and two closes called the rickyard and the foldyard, breaking to pieces locks and cloora, &c., and seizing and carrying away the plaintiff's cattle and goods. There were two counts in the declaration, the first for a trespass on the 1st November, 1839, the second for a similar trespass on the 5th February, 1840. 11;32 WILLIAMS V. MORRIS 8M.&W.489. Pleas, first, not guilty ; secondly, a general plea of leave and licence ; thirdly, to the first count, that the dwelling-house, barn, stable, closes, doors, &c., cattle, goods, and chattels in that count mentioned were not, nor was any of them, nor was any part thereof, the dwelling-house, &c. &c. of the plaintiff, modo et forma: fourthly ; a similar plea to the second count. The plaintiff joined issue on the first, third, and fourth pleas, and to the second replied de injuria, on which also issue was joined. At the trial before Williams, J., at the last Denbighshire ussizes, the following facts appeared:- The plaintiff', who occupied a small farm in the parish of [489] Abergele, in Denbighshire, being indebted to one Roberts in a sum of about 801., was aued by him to (judgment, and in November, 1839, a fieri facias issued against him, under which the cattle, corn, hay, &c., and other goods on his premises, were taken in execution. The sheriff being about to proceed to a sale, the plaintiff applied to the defendants Moms and Davies, who were farmers in the neighbourhood, to befriend him by buying in goods at the sale, and giving him a short time for the repayment of the money advanced for that purpose. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coryton and Another v Lithebye
...though not expressly overruled by the cases of Hewlins v. Shippam and Cocker v. Cowper. (See Gale and Whatley an Easements, 18, et seq. 8 M. & W. 488, Williams v. Morris; see also Eex v. Homdon on the Hill, and Bex v. Hagworthingham, ubi supra.) But those cases in no way conflict with that ......