Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Torts - Other - From: 1800 To: 1849

This page lists 83 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.


 
 Watson v Christie; 1800 - [1800] 2 Bosanauet & Pullen 224; [1800] 126 English Reports 1248
 
Harman v Tappenden (1801) 1 East 555; (1801) 102 ER 214; [1801] EngR 305
1801


Torts - Other
Allegation of abuse of power by judge. Held: An action does not lie against individuals for acts erroneously done by them in a corporate capacity, from which detriment happens to the plaintiff; at least not without proof of malice.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Shadgett v Clipson (1807) 8 East 328
1807


Torts - Other
A sheriff's officer could not justify an imprisonment of A. B. under a latitat against C. B. though it was averred that A. B. and C. B., are one and the same person, there being no averment that A. B. was known by the name of C. B.
1 Citers


 
Keeble v Hickeringill [1809] EngR 7; (1809) 11 East 574; (1809) 103 ER 1127
1809


Torts - Other

1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Sir Francis Burdett, Bart v The Right Hon Charles Abbot; KBD 1811 - (1811) 14 East 1; [1811] EngR 83; (1811) 104 ER 501
 
Rex v De Berenger (1814) 3 M&S 67
1814


Torts - Other
The defendants were successfully prosecuted for conspiring by false rumours to raise the price of the public funds, causing loss to those who bought during this temporary rise.
1 Citers


 
Ackerley v Parkinson (1815) 3 M & S 411; (1815) 105 ER 665
1815


Torts - Other
Abuse of power by judge
1 Citers



 
 Pickering v Rudd; KBD 20-Jun-1815 - [1815] EWHC KB J43; (1815) 4 Camp 219; [1815] 171 ER 70; [1815] EngR 883; (1815) 1 Stark 56; (1815) 171 ER 400 (B); [1815] EngR 884; (1815) 171 ER 70
 
Haddaway v Goddard [1816] ScotJCR 1_Murray_148; (1816) 1 Murray 148
4 Nov 1816
SJC

Scotland, Torts - Other
Damages assessed for assault and battery.
[ Bailii ]
 
Rex v Ford (1817) R & R 329
1817


Police, Torts - Other
It is not necessary for a person making an arrest to state the charge to the person detained in technical or precise language.
1 Citers


 
Jay v Whitfield (Note) (1817) 3 B & Ald 308
1817


Torts - Other
Liability for injury in trap.
1 Citers


 
Bannerman v Burk, &C [1817] ScotJCR 1_Murray_249; (1817) 1 Murray 249
16 Apr 1817
SJC

Scotland, Torts - Other
Damages for assault and battery.
[ Bailii ]
 
Loeschman v Machin (1818) 2 Stark 311; [1818] EngR 36; (1818) 171 ER 656
1818

Abbott J
Torts - Other, Agency
If a hirer of the goods sends them to an auctioneer to be sold, he is guilty of a conversion of the goods; and if the auctioneer afterwards refuses to deliver them to the owner, unless he will pay a sum of money which he claims, he is also guilty of a conversion.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Cullen v Morris (1819) 2 Stark 577; (1819) 171 ER 741
1819


Elections, Torts - Other

1 Citers


 
Elsee v Smith (1822) 2 Chit 304
1822


Torts - Other
The court considered a claim that a search warrant had been issued for malice.
1 Citers


 
Orton v Butler (1822) 5 B & Ald 652; [1822] EngR 285; (1822) 5 B & A 652; (1822) 106 ER 1329
3 May 1822


Torts - Other
A count stating that defendant had and received to the use of the plaintiff a certain sum of money, to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff upon request ; and the non-payment upon request, and that the defendant converted and disposed thereof to his own use, is bad upon demurrer. Conversion does not lie for money, taken and received as currency.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Holden v Smallbrooke [1823] EngR 102; (1823) Vaugh 187; (1823) 124 ER 1030
1823


Torts - Other
In trover and conversion, and not guilty pleaded, the jury gave a special verdict
[ Commonlii ]
 
Whitelegg v Richards (1823) 2 B&C 45
1823

Abbott CJ
Torts - other, Damages
A debtor had been imprisoned to coerce him to pay his debt to the plaintiff. The defendant, a court clerk, ordered him to be released. The plaintiff said this was "wrongfully and maliciously intending to injure the plaintiff". Abbott CJ recorded: "On the argument before us, some authorities were quoted to shew, that an action upon the case may be maintained against an officer of a Court for a falsity or misconduct in his office, whereby a party sustains a special damage; and that, in this case, a damage was plainly shewn by the loss of the means of enforcing payment from the debtor, as in actions against sheriffs or gaolers for an escape. It is not necessary to repeat the authorities quoted. The general principle was not contraverted". Damage was regarded as the gist of the action.
1 Citers



 
 The Earl of Lonsdale v Nelson And Others; 14-Nov-1823 - [1823] EngR 745; (1823) 2 B & C 302; (1823) 107 ER 396
 
Ravenga v Mackintosh [1824] EngR 512; (1824) 2 B & C 693; (1824) 107 ER 541
8 May 1824

Bayley J
Torts - Other
It is a good defence to an action for a malicious arrest, that the defendant, when he caused the plaintiff to be arrested, acted bona fide upon the opinion of a legal adviser of competent skill and ability, and believed that he had a good cause of action against the plaintiff. But where it appeared that the party was influenced by an indirect motive in making the arrest, it was held to be properly left to the jury to consider whether he acted bona fide upon the opinion of his legal adviser, believing that he had a good cause of action.
Bayley J said: "if a party lays all the facts of his case fairly before counsel, and acts bona fide on the opinion given by that counsel (however erroneous that opinion may be) he is not liable to an action."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Bromage and Another v Prosser [1824] EngR 822; (1824) 1 Car & P 475; (1824) 171 ER 1280
20 Aug 1824


Contract, Torts - Other
Semble, that malice is necessary to ground an action for words ; and that if words be proved to be spoken bona fide and without malice, no action lies for the speaking of them, though they be false and actionable in themselves; and though injury result to the party from the speaking of them - and, semble, that the defendant may, under the general issue, go into evidence to shew that he spoke the words bona fide and without rnalice
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Hawkes v Crofton [1825] EngR 117; (1825) 2 Keny 388; (1825) 96 ER 1219 (B)
1825


Torts - Other
A verdict found generally against a defendant in trespass, held sufficiently expressive of opinion in respect of a pleaded justification.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Bromage And Another v Prosser [1825] EngR 42; (1825) 4 B & C 247; (1825) 107 ER 1051
1825


Contract, Torts - Other
Bayley J distinguished "malice in law", inferred from the defendant's intentional interference with the plaintiff's rights, from "malice in fact" and Malice in common acceptation of the term means ill-will against a person, but in its legal sense it means a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse.'
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Wright v Court, Bolton, And Chambers [1825] EngR 723; (1825) 2 Car & P 232; (1825) 172 ER 105
18 Jul 1825


Torts - Other

[ Commonlii ]
 
Bates v Pilling And Seddon [1826] EngR 1198; (1826) 6 B & C 38; (1826) 108 ER 367
10 Nov 1826


Torts - Other
A. employed B., an attorney, to enforce payment of a debt. B. directed his agent to sue out a justicies in the County Court. Before the return of the justicies the debtor paid debt and costs to B. His agent, not knowing of such payment, afterwards entered up judgment in the County Court, although the defendant had not appeared, and sued out execution under which the goods of the debtor were seised. Held, that A. and B. were liable as trespassers.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Garnett v Ferrand And Another [1827] EngR 492; (1827) 6 B & C 611; (1827) 108 ER 576
28 May 1827

Lord Tenterden CJ
Coroners, Torts - Other
No action will lie against the Judge of a Court of Record for an act done by him in his judicial capacity, and therefore trespass cannot be maintained against a coroner for turning a person out of a room where he is about to take an inquisition.
Lord Tenterden CJ said: "This freedom from action and question of the suit of an individual is given by the law to the Judges, not so much for their own sake as for the sake of the public, and for the advancement of justice, that being free from actions, they may be free in thought and independence in judgment, as all who are to administer justice ought to be."
"There is not any occasion to inquire into the power of the coroner before Magna Charta, for by c 17 his power to hold pleas of the Crown was taken away. 'No sheriff, constable, escheator, coroner, nor any other our bailiffs, shall hold pleas of our Crown.' Upon this, Lord Coke says, 'And what authority had the coroner? The same authority he now hath, in case when any man come to violent or untimely death, super visum corporis, &e., abjurations and outlawries, &e., appeals of death by bill, &e. This authority of the coroner, viz. the coroner solely to take an indictment super visum corporis, and to take an appeal, and to enter the appeal ; and the count remaineth to this day. But he can proceed no further, either upon the indictment or appeal, but to deliver them over to the justices: and this is saved to them by Stat. Westm. 1, c. 10.'It may, however, be said, that as to some matters arising out of this inquiry, the inquest of the coroner is final, ex. gr., that the deceased was felo de se ; that a certain thing was deodand; that a certain person was guilty, and fled for it. There are one or two dicta in the books that these findings are not traversable. But it appears by the best authorities, that the inquests of the coroner are in no case conclusive, and that any one affected by them, either collaterally or otherwise, may deny their authority, and put them in issue ."
[ Commonlii ]
 
Bird v Holbrook (1828) 4 Bing 628
1828


Negligence, Torts - Other

1 Citers


 
Henly v Lyme Corporation [1828] EngR 701; (1828) 5 Bing 91; (1828) 130 ER 995
1828

Best CJ
Torts - Other
The plaintiff owned property by the sea. It was swamped by the tide because the corporation, who had been granted land by the Crown subject to a condition that it maintain the sea-defences of the cob, had "wrongfully and unjustly intending to injure, prejudice, and aggrieve the plaintiff" permitted these defences to become "ruinous, prostrate, fallen down, washed down, out of repair, and in great decay" for want of necessary maintenance. Held: Best CJ said: "Now I take it to be perfectly clear, that if a public officer abuses his office, either by an act of omission or commission, and the consequence of that, is an injury to an individual, an action may be maintained against such public officer. The instances of this are so numerous, that it would be a waste of time to refer to them". The Chief Justice gave the example of a man to whom a clergyman refused to administer the sacrament, who was described as "thereby prejudiced in his civil rights" because, under the Corporation Act 1661 and the Test Act 1673, receiving the sacrament within a specified period was a condition of eligibility for membership of a town corporation and of holding civil and military offices. The corporation had neglected its duty and the plaintiff was clearly entitled to be compensated for the financial loss he had suffered.
Obiter: "What constitutes a public officer? In my opinion every one who is appointed to discharge a public duty, and receives a compensation in whatever shape, whether from the Crown or otherwise, is constituted a public officer."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Wilkinson v Bagshaw [1829] EngR 257; (1795, 1812, 1829) Peake Add Cas 165; (1829) 170 ER 233 (A)
1829


Torts - Other

[ Commonlii ]
 
Williams v Taylor (1829) 6 Bing 183
1829

Tindal CJ
Torts - Other
No action will lie for the institution of legal proceedings, however malicious, unless they have been instituted without reasonable and probable cause. Tindal CJ said: "Malice alone is not sufficient, because a person actuated by the plainest malice may none the less have a justifiable reason for prosecution."
1 Citers


 
Jones And Others, Assignees Of Luke Sykes And Thomas Bury v John Yates And John Young [1829] EngR 499; (1829) 9 B & C 532; (1829) 109 ER 198
1 Jun 1829


Company, Torts - Other
A B and C carried on trade in partnership, and A was also in partnership with D. A being indebted to the firm of A B and C before the dissolution of that partnership, unknown to D indorsed a bill and paid over money (belonging to A and D) in discharge of the private debt due from A to A B and C, and immediately afterwards indorsed the same bill to a creditor of the firm of A B and C. The partnership between A B and C having been dissolved : Held, that A and D could not maintain trover against B and C for the bill, nor assumpsit for the money paid by A out of the funds of A and D to A B and C in discharge of his private debt that their assignees could not maintain such actions.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Stephens v Myers; CCP 17-Jul-1830 - (1830) C & P 349; [1830] EWHC KB J37; [1830] 172 ER 735; [1830] EngR 750; (1830) 4 Car & P 349; (1830) 172 ER 735 (A)
 
Hanway v Boultbee [1830] 1 M and Rob 15; [1830] EngR 887; (1830) 4 Car & P 350; (1830) 172 ER 735 (B); [1830] EngR 888; (1830) 174 ER 6
30 Nov 1830


Torts - Other, Crime
A person may use a proportionate degree of force to defend himself, or others, from attack or the threat of imminent attack, or to defend his property or the property of others in the same circumstances.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ] - [ Commonlii ]
 
Hawkes And Another, Assignees Of Stephen Dunn v Samuel Dunn [1831] EngR 100; (1831) 1 Cr & J 519; (1831) 148 ER 1529 (B)
1831


Insolvency, Torts - Other
The agent of a bankrupt who has made himself responsible for the price of goods, may stop them in transitu. But if, after they have reached a certain place, he give them in a new destination in furtherance of the bankrupt's business, and in the course of the bankrupt's trade, when they arrive at the place of such destination, they vest in the bankrupt, and pass to his assignees. A defendant received from A some bacon, really the property of a bankrupt, and the messenger under the commission asked him if he had not got some bacon of the bankrupt; to which he replied that he had some belonging to A ; upon which the messenger desired him to take care of it, and not part with it, as more would he heard of it. Afterwards the defendant allowed the bacon to be returned by A to the person from whom A had received it : - Held, that this was evidence of a conversion.
[ Commonlii ]
 
James v Campbell (1832) 5 Car & P 372; 172 ER 1015
1832

Mr Justice Bosanquet
Torts - Other
The defendant was involved in a fight at a parish dinner and it was suggested that he had hit the claimant by mistake, giving him two black eyes. The jury were that even on that premise he would be liable.
1 Citers


 
Ashcroft v Bourne, Porter, Brookes, Mercer, Lythgoe, And Billinge [1832] EngR 620; (1832) 3 B & Ad 684; (1832) 110 ER 250
29 May 1832


Torts - Other
Two magistrates having, at a request, given possession of a dwelling-house as deserted and unoccupied pursuant to the 11 G. 2, e. 19, s. 16, the Judges of Assize of the county, on appeal, made an order for the restitution of the farm to the tenant, with costs. The latter brought an action of trespass for the eviction, against the magistrates, the constable, and the landlord: Held, that the record of the proceeding before the magistrates was an answer to the action on behalf of all the defendants.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Hensworth v Fowkes [1833] EngR 344; (1833) 4 B & Ad 449; (1833) 110 ER 524
22 Jan 1833


Torts - Other

[ Commonlii ]
 
Sturge v Starr [1833] EngR 414; (1833) 2 My & K 195; (1833) 39 ER 918
15 Feb 1833


Torts - Other
A man, already married, performed the ceremony of marriage with GW, and joined with her in executiing an assignment of her life interest in a trust fund to a purchaser. The fraud practised upon GW by the person acting in the character of her husband did not affect the validity of the assignment, nor was it necessary to make the supposed husband a party to a suit instituted by the purchaser to obtain the benefit of the assignment
[ Commonlii ]
 
Holl v Griffin And Another [1833] EngR 806; (1833) 10 Bing 246; (1833) 131 ER 898
5 Nov 1833


Torts - Other
W possessed of a Stockton wharfinger’s receipt for goods about to be shipped to London, assigned the receipt to Plaintiff, together with an order on Defendant, a London wharfinger, to deliver the goods to Plaintiff: Defendant, on sight of the order before the goods arrived, promised to deliver them to Plaintiff on their arrival : Held, that Plaintiff might maintain trover against him, on his refusal to deliver after arrival.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Herring v Boyle; Exch 1834 - (1834) 1 Cr M & R 377; [1834] EngR 139; (1834) 1 CrM & R 377; (1834) 149 ER 1126
 
Colburn v Patmore (1834) 1 Cr and R 73
1834

Lord Lyndhurst
Torts - Other
A person who is declared by law to be guilty of a crime cannot be allowed to recover damages against another person who has participated in its commission.
Lord Lyndhurst said: "I can see no reason, for my part, why a defendant, who is not participating in a crime, should be in a less favourable position."
1 Citers



 
 Herring v Boyle; Exch 1834 - [1834] EngR 140; (1834) 6 Car & P 496; (1834) 172 ER 1335

 
 Moriarty v Brooks; ExcC 8-Dec-1834 - [1834] EWHC Exch J79; [1834] EngR 1141; (1834) 6 Car & P 684; (1834) 172 ER 1419
 
Timothy v Simpson (1835) 1 CM & R 757
1835

Parke B
Torts - Other, Police
It was argued that a fight between two persons could not support the arrest of both for breach of the peace. Holding that the arrestor did not have to decide on the merits of the dispute. Held: “If no one could be restrained of his liberty, in cases of mutual conflict, except the party who did the first wrong, and the bystanders acted at their peril in this respect, there would be very little chance of the public peace being preserved by the interference of private individuals, nor indeed of police officers, whose power of interposition on their own view appears not to differ [at common law] from that of any of the King’s other subjects.”

 
Tarber v French [1835] EngR 435; (1835) 4 Ad & E 362; (1835) 111 ER 823
25 Jan 1835


Torts - Other

[ Commonlii ]
 
Fraser v Berkeley [1836] 7 Carrington & Payne 621
1836

Lord Abinger
Torts - Other, Damages
The defendant had written a book and the plaintiff had written a rather caustic criticism of it which reflected not only on the defendant's skill as an author but on his character and that of his family. This annoyed the defendant very much, and with his brother he went to the plaintiff's shop and gave him a very severe beating indeed with his fists and a horse-whip. Held: Lord Abinger in summing up told the jury that in assessing the damages they could properly take into account the plaintiff's conduct and the imputations which he had made against the defendant and his family.
1 Citers



 
 Lyde v Barnard; CExC 1836 - [1836] 1 M & W 101; [1836] EngR 146; (1836) 150 ER 363
 
Farrer v Beswick 1836 Meeson and Welsby's Reports 682
1836

Baron Parke
Company, Torts - Other
Baron Parke said: "I have always understood, until the doubt was raised in Barton v. Williams, that one joint-tenant or tenant in common of a chattel could not be guilty of a conversion by a sale of that chattel, unless it were sold in such a manner as to deprive his partner of his interest in it. A sale in market overt would have that effect."
1 Citers


 
Langridge v Levy (1837) 2 M & W 519; [1837] EngR 156; (1837) 150 ER 863
1836
ExP
Parke B
Torts - Other
A man sold a gun which he knew to be dangerous for the use of the purchaser's son. The gun exploded in the son's hands. Held: The son had a right of action in tort against the gunmaker, but, Parke B said: "We should pause before we made a precedent by our decision which would be an authority for an action against the vendors, even of such instruments and articles as are dangerous in themselves, at the suit of any person whomsoever into whose hands they might happen to pass, and who should be injured thereby."
1 Citers

[ lip ] - [ Commonlii ]
 
Shackell v Rosier [1836] EngR 613; (1836) 2 Bing NC 635; (1836) 132 ER 245
22 Apr 1836

Tindall CJ
Torts - Other, Contract
In consideration that Plaintiff had published a libel at Defendant's request, and had at the like request consented to defend an action brought against Plaintiff for such publication, Defendant promised to indemnify Plaintiff from the costs of the action : Held, that the promise was void.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rex v Barnard (1837) 7 C & P 784
1837


Torts - Other
A buyer dressed as a member of the University to persuade the seller to give him credit. Held: Active non verbal conduct can amount to deceit just as much as words can.
1 Citers


 
Staley v Long [1837] EngR 729; (1837) 3 Bing NC 781; (1837) 132 ER 612 (A)
8 May 1837


Torts - Other
Trespass qu. cl. fr. Pleas. 1. Not guilty. 2. Not Plaintiff's close. 3. Right of way. Verdict for Plaintiff on 1 and 2, with 1s. damages, and for Defendant on 3. The Court ordered the postea to be delivered to the Defendant.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Levy v Langridge [1838] EngR 164; (1838) 4 M & W 337; (1838) 150 ER 1458
1838


Torts - Other

1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Webb v Portland Manufacturing Co; 1838 - (1838) 3 Sumner Rep 189

 
 Grainger v Hill; CexC 1838 - (1838) 4 Bing (NC) 212; [1838] EngR 365; (1838) 4 Bing NC 212; (1838) 132 ER 769

 
 Attwood v Small and Others; HL 1-Mar-1838 - [1838] UKHL J14; 7 ER 684; [1838] UKHL J60

 
 Attwood v Small and Others; HL 1-Mar-1838 - [1838] UKHL J14; 7 ER 684; [1838] UKHL J60
 
Allen v Wright [1838] EngR 793; (1838) 8 Car & P 522; (1838) 173 ER 602
4 Jul 1838

Tindal CJ
Torts - Other
EngR In an action for false imprisonment, the defendant justified on the ground that the plaintiff had been his lodger, and after she had left her apartments he discovered that some feathers were missing from a bed which she had occupied, and he suspecting her to be the person who had stolen them, caused her to be apprehended, &c. It appeared that the defendant took a policeman at night to the new lodgings of the plaintiff a few days after she had left his house, and had her apprehended and taken to the station-house, and the next day she was examined before the magistrate and discharged. Held: That as the defendant had taken the law into his own hands, and not adopted, as a prudent person would, under such clrcumstances, the cautious course of having previous investigation by a magistrate, and obtaining a warrant from him, it was incumbent on him to make out to the entire satisfaction of the jury not only that a felony had been committed, but that the circumstances of the case were such that they or any reasonable person, acting without passion or prejudice, would fairly have suspected the plaintiff of being the person who had committed it.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Monks v Dykes (1839) 4 M & W 569; [1839] EngR 169; (1839) 4 M & W 567; (1839) 150 ER 1546
1839

Parke, B, Lord Abinger
Torts - Other
The defendant pleaded in answer to a charge of assault that he was being disturbed in his possession of land. Held: It was not suficient to sustan the plea by proof that the defendant was a lodger occupying only one room in a house of which the landlord retained the key to the outside door. Lord Abinger: 'a room within a house may be a dwelling-house or it may not.' Parke B said that the term domus mansionalis in law refers 'to a chamber under certain circumstances, viz when a house is divided into several chambers, with separate outer doors.'
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Yorke v Chapman (1839) 10 Ad & E 207
1839

Lord Denman CJ
Prisons, Torts - Other
The plaintiff was a prisoner committed to the Queen's Bench Prison for debt. He had been further confined by the marshal in terms of a rule of court in a strong room for disorderly behaviour. He had a statutory right to petition the court on the ground of abuse by the prison authorities and in respect of that complaint the court had power to award recompense and costs. However, he chose instead to bring an action of assault and false imprisonment against the marshal. The Attorney-General sought a rule absolute to stay the action on the ground, inter alia, that there was no charge of excess Held: The plaintiff's statutory remedy did not remove his right to bring an action for redress.
1 Citers


 
Seddon v Connell [1840] EngR 678; (1840) 10 Sim 58; (1840) 59 ER 534
10 Jun 1840


Company, Torts - Other
A. filed a bill against the public officer of a joint stock bank, alledging that he had been induced to purchase 500 shares in the bank by fraudulent representations made by the directors, in their reports, as to the prosperous state of the company’s affairs, and praying for a declaration to that effect and that the purchase might be declared void, as between him and the company, and that the latter might repay him his purchase-money. Held, that as the litigation was between one member of the partnership as such, and the other members as such, the public officer was improperly made a party to it as representing the company ; and a demurrer by him was allowed.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Fouldes v Willoughby (1841) 8 M & W 540; 1 Dowl NS 86; [1841] EngR 735; (1841) 8 M & W 540; (1841) 151 ER 1153
1841


Torts - Other
The ferryman who turned the plaintiff's horses off the Birkenhead to Liverpool ferry was guilty of conversion if he intended to exercise dominion over them, but not otherwise. Scratching the panel of a horse carriage would be a trespass, but it should not found an action for trover.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Hoye v Bush (1840 ) 1 Man & G 775
1841

Tindal CJ
Torts - Other
A constable applied for a warrant for the arrest of Richard Hoye, but the justice mistakenly issued a warrant for the arrest of John Hoye, which was the name of Richard Hoye's father. The constable arrested Richard Hoye, who sued for false imprisonment, and he was held to be entitled to recover: "The question in this case is, whether the defendant was justified in arresting the plaintiff under a warrant, describing him as John Hoye, his real name being Richard Hoye. On the part of the defendant it is contended that the justification was sufficient, inasmuch as an officer is protected, where the party arrested is the person really intended to be taken. Such a qualification is not allowed by law. In civil process you could not justify taking a person by the name mentioned in the warrant, his real name being different."
1 Cites


 
Perry v Truefitt (1842) 49 ER 749; (1842) 6 Beav 66
1842
CA
Lord Langdale MR
Intellectual Property, Torts - Other
The court considered the nature of the tort of passing off. "I think that the principle on which both the courts of law and of equity proceed, in granting relief and protection in cases of this sort, is very well understood. A man is not to sell his own goods under the pretence that they are the goods of another man; he cannot be permitted to practice such a deception, nor to use the means which contribute to that end. He cannot therefore be allowed to use names, marks, letters, or other indicia, by which he may induce purchasers to believe, that the goods which he is selling are the manufacture of another person. I own it does not seem to me that a man can acquire property in a name or mark; but whether he has or not a property in the name or mark, I have no doubt that another person has not the right to use that name or mark for the purposes of deception, and in order to attract to himself the course of trade, or that custom, which without the improper act, would have flowed to the person who first used, or was alone in the habit of using the particular name or mark."
1 Citers


 
Bassford v Blakesley [1842] EngR 189; (1842) 6 Beav 131; (1842) 49 ER 775
27 Jan 1842


Torts - Other, Litigation Practice
Where deeds are impeached for fraud, the mere allegation of fraud by the bill will not entitle the Plaintiff to an order for their production ; on the other hand, in order to obtain a production, it is not necessary that the fraud should be admitted by the answer, the Court must look at the circumstances of each case.
Order made for the production of a deed impeached for fraud, though the fraud was denied by the answer, the case on the whole being such as to render an inspection proper.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Jacobsohn v Blake and Compton (1844) 6 Man and G 919; 13 LJ CP 89; [1843] EngR 175; (1844) 6 Man & G 919; (1843) 134 ER 1164
13 Jan 1843

Tindal CJ, Erskine J, Cresswell J
Customs and Excise, Torts - Other
Custom-house officers took possession of goods landed by the plaintiff for the purpose of examination and detained them upon a misapprehension that they were prohibited and liable to forfeiture. In an action for trespass, the defence was that, there having been no seizure by the officers, the action of trespass could not be maintained. The jury were directed that the goods having been legally in the possession of the defendants, and there having been no seizure by them, the action of trespass could not be maintained. That direction was upheld in the Court of Common Pleas. Held: In order to entitle the plaintiff to maintain such an action [of trespass] there must have been an actual seizure of the plaintiff's goods. There was no evidence of any act of trespass. There was no seizure whatever by the defendants. The goods were landed and taken possession of by the defendants in the discharge of their duty, for the purpose of their being examined. There was no evidence of any seizure or of any other act amounting to a trespass. There was no trespass in the first instance, or anything that could be called a seizure. The goods were taken by the plaintiff's agent to the proper place for examination of them by the defendants in the regular discharge of their duty as custom-house officers. Upon their examination, all that the defendants did was, to detain them, till it could be ascertained whether or not they were liable to forfeiture. This is not an act of trespass.
Tindal CJ said: "[T]he defendants merely took possession of the goods, in the execution of their duty as custom-house officers, for the purpose of examination. When the goods were examined certain marks were found upon them, which induced the defendants to think they were prohibited; and they said they must detain them; and then, on a subsequent application on the part of the plaintiff for the delivery of the goods, the answer was that they were detained and would be prosecuted as seizures. It appears, therefore, that the defendants originally detained the goods under a real and honest doubt that they were subject to forfeiture: whether that doubt was well grounded, is not now the question. . . There has been no abuse of authority on their part. The goods remained, during the whole time of the examination, in the same custody in which they were, in the first instance, legally detained."
Coltman J said: "The defendants were custom-house officers acting under an authority given them by law. It was their duty to examine the goods in question, in order to ascertain to what duty they were liable, or whether or not they were subject to forfeiture. If the goods had been afterwards detained by them for a time more than reasonable for the examination, that might have been an abuse of their authority so as to render them liable in another form of action. But it appears to me there is no ground for saying they did more than detain the goods for a reasonable time, in order that the question as to the liability of the goods to forfeiture might be submitted to the proper authorities."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Gregory v C F A W Duke Of Brunswick And H W Vallance [1843] EngR 723; (1843) 6 Man & G 205; (1843) 134 ER 866
31 May 1843


Torts - Other

[ Commonlii ]
 
Gregory v Duke Of Brunswick and Vallance [1843] EngR 859; (1843) 1 Car & K 24; (1843) 174 ER 696
21 Jun 1843


Media, Torts - Other, Litigation Practice
The public, who go to a theatre, have a right to express thelr free and unbiassed opinions of the merits of the performers who appear upon the stage, but parties have no right to go to a theatre, by a preconcerted plan to make such a noise that an actor, without any judgment being formed of his performance, should be driven from the stage, and if two persons are shewn to have laid a preconcerted plan to deprive a person who comes out as an actor of the benefits which he expected to result from his appearance on the stage, they are liable in an action for a conspiracy. In an action for a, conspiracy to hiss an actor, the defendants cannot, under the genera1 issue, give in evidence libels published by the plaintiff, with a view of shewing that the plaintiff was hissed on account of those libels, and not by reason of any conspiracy of the defendants. In an action for a conspiracy, the defendants pleaded the general issue, arid also a special plea of justification, which plea was demurred to, and held bad by the Court, who gave judgment on it for the plaintiff and the award of venire was as well to try the issue joined "as, to inquire what damages the said plaintiff hath sustained on occasion of the premises whereof the Court hath given judgment for the said plaintiff" Held, that on the trial at Nisi Prius, the defendant's counsel, in addressing the jury, had a right to refer to the allegatlons contained in the special plea, and to comment upon them.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Gregory v C F A W Duke Of Brunswick And H W Vallance [1844] EngR 149; (1844) 6 Man & G 953; (1844) 134 ER 1178
25 Jan 1844


Torts - Other

[ Commonlii ]
 
Gregory v The Duke of Brunswick And Another [1844] EngR 576 (B); (1844) 7 Man & G 511
27 May 1844


Torts - Other

[ Commonlii ]
 
Railton v Mathews and Leonard and Another [1844] EngR 683; (1844) 10 Cl & Fin 934; (1844) 8 ER 993
14 Jun 1844


Agency, Torts - Other
A party became surety in a bond for the fidelity of a commission agent to his employers. After some time the employers discovered irregularities in the agent’s accounts, and put the bond in suit. The surety then instituted a suit to avoid the ’bond, on the ground of concealment by the employers of material circumstances affecting the agent’s credit prior to the date of the bond, and which, if communicated to the surety, would have prevented him from undertaking the obligation. On the trial of an issue whether the surety was induced to sign the bond by undue Concealment or deception on the part of the employers, the presiding Judge directed the jury, that the concealment, to be undue, must be wilful and intentional, with a view to the advantages the employers were thereby to gain : Held by the Lords (reversing the judgment of the Court of Session) that the direction was wrong in point of law. Mere non-communication of circumstances affecting the situation of the parties, material for the surety to be acquainted with, and within the knowledge of the person obtaining a surety bond, is undue concealment, though not wilful or intentional, or with a view to any advantage tor himself.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Mellor v Spateman [1845] EngR 154; (1845) 1 Wms Saund 339; (1845) 85 ER 489
1845


Torts - Other

[ Commonlii ]
 
Bird v Jones [1845] EWHC QB J64; (1845) 7 QB 742; (1845) 115 ER 668; (1845) LJ QB 82; (1845) 5 LT OS 46; (1845) 10 JP 4; (1845) 9 Jur 870
11 Jan 1845
QBD

Torts - Other
A section of public road was closed off to provide a vantage point for a boat race. The plaintiff refused to be excluded, and complained that he had not been allowed to use the public highway, and had therefore been imprisoned. Held: (majority) "there was no imprisonment. To call it so appears to me to confound partial obstruction and disturbance with total obstruction and detention. A prison may have its boundary large or narrow, visible and tangible, or, though real, still in the conception only; it may itself be moveable or fixed: but a boundary it must have; and that boundary the party imprisoned must be prevented from passing; he must be prevented from leaving that place, within the ambit of which the party imprisoning would confine him, except by prison-breach."
[ Bailii ]
 
Wood v Leadbitter [1845] EWHC Exch J83; (1845) 13 M & W 838; [1845] EngR 528; (1845) 153 ER 351
22 Feb 1845
ExcC
Alderson B
Torts - Other
The plaintiff complained of being assaulted. He had been on Doncaster Race Course with a ticket. The owner's servant requested him to leave, and when he refused gently laid his hands on the plaintiff to remove him. The plaintiff said that his licence could not be terminated. Held: "a license under seal (provided it be a mere license) is as revocable as a license by parol; and, on the other hand, a license by parol, coupled with a grant, is as irrevocable as a license by deed, provided only that the grant is of a nature capable of being made by parol. But where there is a license by parol, coupled with a parol grant, or pretended grant, of something which is incapable of being granted otherwise than by deed, there the license is a mere license; it is not an incident to a valid grant, and it is therefore revocable. Thus, a license by A to hunt in his park, whether given by deed or by parol, is revocable; it merely renders the act of hunting lawful, which, without the license, would have been unlawful."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Commonlii ]
 
Turner v Ford [1846] EngR 407; (1846) 15 M & W 212; (1846) 153 ER 826
11 Feb 1846


Torts - Other
The plaintiff lent a piano-forte to W, in whose hands it was seized under a distress for rent. While the lancllorcl's bailiff remained iii possession by W.'s consent, a fieri facias against W, at the suit of another creditor, was put into the premises, and the officer seized the piano forte, and removed it to the premises of the defendant, an auctioneer, for sale : Held, that the plaintiff' (after demarid arid refusal to deliver it) was entitled to recover it from the defendant in trover.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Gregory v The Duke Of Brunswick, And Vallance [1846] EngR 721; (1846) 3 CB 481; (1846) 136 ER 192
1 Jun 1846


Torts - Other

[ Commonlii ]
 
Hooper v Lane [1847] 6 HLC 443; [1847] 10 QB 546
1847

Lord Cranworth
Police, Torts - Other
A man taken prisoner is entitled to know why. Lord Cranworth said: "The sheriff is bound, when he executes the writ, to make known the ground of the arrest, in order, among other reasons, that the person arrested may know whether he is or is not bound to submit to the arrest."
1 Citers



 
 Moffett v Brewer; 1848 - (1848) Iowa 1 Greene 348
 
Ramsden v The Manchester, South Junction, And Altrincham Railway Company [1848] EngR 168; (1848) 1 Exch 723; (1848) 154 ER 307
25 Jan 1848


Torts - Other, Land, Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
Gawler v Chaplin And Two Others [1848] EngR 581; (1848) 2 Exch 503; (1848) 154 ER 590
8 Jun 1848


Torts - Other

[ Commonlii ]
 
Duke of Athol v Torrie (1849) 12 D 328
1849


Torts - Other, Scotland

1 Citers


 
Holford v Bailey [1849] 13 QB 426
1849


Torts - Other

1 Citers


 
Cobbett v Grey [1849] 4 Ex 729
1849


Torts - Other, Prisons
A prisoner complained that he had been falsely imprisoned in a part of a prison in which he could not lawfully be confined.
1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.