Woollen v Wright

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date23 June 1862
Date23 June 1862

English Reports Citation: 158 E.R. 1005



S. C. 31 L. J. Ex 513, 10 W R 715; 7 L T. 73 Considered, Durant v Roberts, [1901] 1 Q B 629 reversed nomine Keighley, Masted & Company v Dutant, [1901] A. C 240

1H.&C. 555 WOOLLEN V. WRIGHT 1005 in the exchequer chamber. (Error from the Court of Exchequer ) woollen v. wright June 23, 1862 -An execution creditor does not, by becoming a party to an interpleader issue, ratify or adopt the act of the sheriff, so as to render himself liable in trespass for the seizure of the goods, which Me the subject of the interpleader issue [S. C. 31 L. J. Ex 51.3, 10 W K 715; 7 L T. 73 Considered, Viuant v Bohett\ [1901] 1 Q B 629 reversed nomine Keighlet/, Miuted Jc Company v Du/attf, [1901] A. C 240 ] Error on a bill of exceptions The declaration stated that the defendant broke and entered a dwelling-house of the plaintiff, and seized, took, and carried away his goods Pleas (inter aha). First not guilty Fourthly, as to breaking and entering the dwelling-house, a justification under a writ of fieri facias issued on a judgment recovered by the defendant against one Inman. The plaintiff joined issue on the first plea, and took and joined issue on the fourth, except as to the judgment and [555] writ of fieri facias , and he also new assigned, that he sued for trespasses committed by the defendant to a greater extent, and with more violence, and for a longer time than was necessary for the purpose and on the occasion referred to in the fourth plea. Plea to new assignment not guilty Issue thereon. The cause was tried before M.utin, B, at the Yorkshire Summer Assizes, 1861, and the bill of exceptions stated the following facts -At the time of the seizure hereinafter mentioned the plaintiff was the proprietor and in legal possession of Cooper's Hotel, at Brightside Lane, in Sheffield (being the dwelling-house mentioned in the declaration), and was then carrying on the said Cooper's Hotel as a public house by and under the management of one Creorge Inman and his wife, who weie at the time residing therein. There were at the said Cooper ;b Hotel goods, fixtures, and effects of the plaintiff of large value, and also some goods of the said G luman. On the 17th September, 1860, the defendant obtained in the Court of Exchequer final judgment against the said G-. Inman for the sum of 1651 8s 6d , and the following day, by the direction of the defendant, his attorney sued out a writ of fieri facias, and delivered the same to the sheriff of York to be executed On the same day a warrant was issued upon the writ by the sheriff directed to one of his officers, and indorsed to levy the amount of the judgment and costs of execution On the 19th September, 1 S( 0, the officer of the sheriff, with two of his men, entered the sard Cooper's Hotel for the purpose of executing the sard warrant upon the goods, chattels, and effects of the said C4 In man therein, and left one of his men in possession There was evidence that the officer and men acting under his authority had misconducted themselves in levying and selling under the writ. On the 20th September the plaintiff's attorney made a [556] claim to the goods, chattels, and effects so seized, on behalf on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • South East Enterprises (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hean Nerng Holdings Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 31 May 2012
    ...the Bank of England (No 3) [2003] 2 AC 1 (refd) Williams v Williams & Nathan [1937] 2 All ER 559 (refd) Woollen v Wright (1862) 1 H&C 554; 158 ER 1005 ( (refd) Distress Act (Cap 84,1996 Rev Ed) Government Proceedings Act (Cap 121, 1985 Rev Ed) s 6 (3) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev ......
  • South East Enterprises (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hean Nerng Holdings Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 15 March 2013
    ...6 Man & G 236; 134 ER 879 (refd) Wong Cheong Kai v Hongkong & Shanghai Bank [1996] 4 CLJ 114 (refd) Woollen v Wright (1862) 1 H & C 554; 158 ER 1005 (refd) Zhiping Zhou v Ronald Geoffrey Kousal [2012] VSC 187 (refd) Courts Ordinance 1934 (SS Ord No 17 of 1934) ss 84, 86 Courts Ordinance (Ca......
  • T. Power v Fleming and O'Donnell
    • Ireland
    • Common Pleas Division (Ireland)
    • 14 June 1870
    ...& E. 512. Childers v. WoolerUNK 29 L. J. Q. B. 129. Humphreys v. Pratt 2 Dow. & L. 288. Evans v. Collins 5 Q. B. 804. Wooler v. WrightENR 1 H. & C. 554. Wilson v. BarkerENR 4 B. & Ad., 616. Hathaway v. BarrowENR 1 Camp. 151. Sandback v. Thomas Hark. N. P. 306. Grace v. MorganENR 2 B. N. C. ......
  • Williams v Williams & Nathan
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • Invalid date

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT