Wood v Manley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 November 1839 |
| Date | 06 November 1839 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 113 E.R. 325
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. 3 P. & D. 5; 9 L. J. Q. B. 27; 3 Jur. 1028. Referred to, Salter v. Woollams, 1841, 2 Man. & G. 657; Cornish v. Stubbs, 1870, L. R. 5 C. P. 340; Jones v. Tankerville, [1909] 2 Ch. 443.
wood against manley. Wednesday, November 6th, 1839. Goods which were upon plaintiffs land were sold to defendant; by the conditions of sale, to which plaintiff was a party, the buyer was to be allowed to enter and take the goods. Held that, after the sale, plaintiff could not countermand the licence. And, defendant having entered to take, and plaintiff having brought trespass, and defendant having pleaded leave and licence and a peaceable entry to take, to which plaintiff replied de injuria: Held that defendant was entitled to the verdict, though it appeared that plaintiff had, between the sale and the entry, locked the gates and forbidden defendant to enter, and defendant had broken down the gates and entered to take the goods. [S. C. 3 P. & D. 5 ; 9 L. J. Q. B. 27 ; 3 Jur. 1028. Referred to, Salter v. Woottams, 1841, 2 Man. & G. 657; Cwnish v. Stubbs, 1870, L. R. 5 C. P. 340; Jones v. Tankervilk, [1909] 2 Ch. 443.] Trespass for breaking and entering plaintiff's close. Plea (besides others not material here), as to entering the close, that defendant, before the time when, &c,, was lawfully possessed of a large quantity of hay, which was upon plaintiffs close in which, &c., and that defendant, at the times when, &c., by leave and licence of the plaintiff to him for that purpose first given and granted, peaceably entered the close, to carry off the said hay, and did then and there peaceably take his said hay from and out of the said close, as he lawfully, &c., which are the said alleged trespasses, &c. Replication, de injuria. Ou the trial, before Erskine J., at the last Somersetshire Assizes, it appeared that the plaintiff was tenant of a farm, including the locus in quo; and that, his landlord having distrained on him for rent, the goods seized, comprehending the hay mentioned in the plea, were sold on the premises ; the conditions of the sale being, that the purchasers might let the hay remain on the premises till the Lady-Day following (1838), and entar on the [35] premises in the mean while, as often as they pleased, to remove it. The defendant purchased the hay at the sale : and evidence was given to shew that the plaintiff was a party to these conditions. After...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coryton and Another v Lithebye
...was to be allowed to enter and take the goods : it was held, that, after the sale, the plaintiff' would not countermand the licence. 11 A. & E. 34, Wood v. Manlei/. 3 P. & D. 5, S. C. In this case, both Tayler v. Waters, and Liggins v. Inge appear to have been recognised, and regarded as pr......
-
Armstrong v Sheppard & Short Ltd
...page 82); ( Wallis v. Harrison 4 Meeson and Welsby, page 539: 150 English Reports page 1543); ( Wood v. Manley 11 Adolphus and Ellis page 34: 113 English Reports page 325); down to the well known and classic case of ( Wood v. Leadbitter 13 Meeson and Welsby page 838: 153 English Reports pag......
- Secretary Department of Health and Community Services v Jwb (Marion's Case)
-
Lewis v Australian Capital Territory
...(Marion's Case) (1992) 175 CLR 218 at 311, citing Kavanagh v Gudge (1844) 7 Man & G 316 [ 135 ER 132], Wood v Manley (1839) 11 Ad & E 34 [ 113 ER 325], and Plenty v Dillon (1991) 171 CLR 635 at 232 Plenty v Dillon (1991) 171 CLR 635 at 647. 233 Marion's Case (1992) 175 CLR 218 at 233. 234 C......