Links: Home

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being published 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: 1849 To: 1899

This page lists 106 cases, and was prepared on 29 October 2014.

 
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


 
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



 
 Irvine -v- Kirkpatrick; HL 1850 - (1850) 7 Bell App (HL) 186

 
 Longmeid -v- Holliday; 1851 - (1851) 6 Ex 761; [1851] EngR 583; (1851) 6 Exch 761; (1851) 155 ER 752
 
Embrey -v- Owen (1851) 6 Ex 353
1851

Parke B
Torts - Other
''It was very ably argued before us by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs had a right to the full flow of the water in its natural course and abundance, as an incident to their property in the land through which it flowed; and that any abstraction of the water, however inconsiderable, by another riparian proprietor, and though productive of no actual damage, would be actionable, because it was an injury to a right and, if continued, would be the foundation of a claim of adverse right in that proprietor. We by no means dispute the truth of this proposition, with respect to every description of right. Actual perceptible damage is not indispensable as the foundation of an action; it is sufficient to show the violation of a right, in which case the law will presume damage; injuria sine damno is actionable . . . '
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Shedden -v- Patrick; 1852 - (1852) 14 D 727
 
Horsfall -v- Thomas (1852) 1 H & C 90
1852


Torts - Other
It is a necessary requirement for an action in misrepresentation, that the misrepresentation induced the other party to enter into the contract.
1 Citers


 
Lumley -v- Gye (1853) 2 E & B 216
1853

Erle J
Contract, Torts - Other
An opera singer (Miss Wagner) and the defendant theatre owner were joint wrongdoers. They had a common design that the opera singer should break her contract with the plaintiff theatre owner, refuse to sing in the plaintiff's theatre and instead sing in the defendant's theatre. The plaintiff's cause of action against the opera singer lay in contract, and the plaintiff's cause of action against the defendant lay in tort. Held: Tthe opera singer and the defendant were joint wrongdoers participating in an unlawful common design. An actionable wrong is committed by a person deliberately inducing a party to a contract to breach it. A person who procures another to commit a wrong incurs liability as an accessory. Erle J: "It is clear that the procurement of the violation of a right is a cause of action in all instances where the violation is an actionable wrong, as in violations of a right to property, whether real or personal, or to personal security: he who procures the wrong is a joint wrongdoer, and may be sued, either alone or jointly with the agent, in the appropriate action for the wrong complained of. Where a right to the performance of a contract has been violated by a breach thereof, the remedy is upon the contract, against the contracting party; and, if he made to indemnify for such breach, no further recourse is allowed; and, as in a case of the procurement of a breach of contract, the action is for a wrong and cannot be joined with the action on the contract, and as the act itself is not likely to be of frequent occurrence nor easy of proof, therefore the action for this wrong, in respect of other contracts than those of hiring, are not numerous; but still they seem to me sufficient to show that the principle has been recognised." and "He who maliciously procures a damage to another by violation of his right ought to be made to indemnify; and that, whether he procures an actionable wrong or a breach of contract."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Pulsford -v- Richards [1853] EngR 417; (1853) 17 Beav 87; (1853) 51 ER 965
18 Apr 1853


Contract, Torts - Other
Where a party, by misrepresentation, draws another into a contract, such party may be compelled to make good the representation, if that be possible, but if it be impossible, the person deceived may avoid the contract. The same principle applies, though the party at the time believed the statement to be true, if in the clue discharge of his duty, he ought to have then known otherwise.
Third parties, who by false representations induce others to enter into contracts, are estopped from afterwards falsifying their statement, and, if necessary, may be compelled to make them good. But the false statement of one, not a party to the agreement entered into on the faith of it, is not a ground for avoiding it.
Misrepresentations may be either by a suppression of the truth or an assertion of what is false ; but to be the ground for avoiding the contract, the representation must be one “dans locum contractiui", or such that it is reasonable to infer that in its absence the party deceived would not have entered into the contract.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Foxall -v- Barnett [1853] EngR 985; (1853) 2 El & Bl 928; (1853) 118 ER 1014
17 Nov 1853


Torts - Other
Defendant, by a warrant of commitment on a coroner’s inquisition held without jurisdiction, caused plaintiff to be imprisoned. Plainitiff was bailed, and afterwards, while on bail, procured the inquisition to be quashed. Held that, in an action for such false imprisonment, plaintiff was entitled, under an allegation that he had incurred expense in procuring his discharge from custody, to recover damages for the expense of quashing the inquisition.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Taylor -v- Nesfield (1854) 3 El & Bl 724; (1854) 118 ER 1312
1854


Torts - Other
Misuse of position by judge
1 Citers



 
 Stevens -v- The Midland Counties Railway Company And Lander; 22-Jun-1854 - [1854] EngR 661; (1854) 10 Exch 352; (1854) 156 ER 480
 
Regina -v- Pratt (1855) 4 E & B 860
1855

Crompton J, Erle J
Land, Torts - Other
"I take it to be clear law that, if a man use the land over which there is a right of way for any purpose, lawful or unlawful, other than that of passing and repassing, he is a trespasser."
1 Citers


 
Jeffries -v- Great Western Railway RW. Co. (1856) :5:E and B 802
1856

Lord Campbell
Torts - Other
"I am of opinion that the law is that a person possessed of goods as his property has a good title as against every stranger, and that one who takes them from him having no title in himself is a wrong-doer, and cannot defend himself by showing that there was title in some third person, for against a wrong-doer possession is title."
1 Citers


 
Tozer -v- Child (1857) 7 El & Bl 377; (1857) 119 ER 1286
1857


Elections, Torts - Other

1 Citers


 
Wootton -v- Dawkins [1857] EngR 408; (1857) 2 CB NS 412; (1857) 140 ER 477
18 Apr 1857


Personal Injury, Torts - Other
The plaintiff entered the defendant’s garden at night, and without his permission, to search for a stray fowl, and, whilst looking closely into some bushes, he came in contact with a wire, which caused something to explode with a loud noise, knocking him down and slightly injuring his face and eyes: Held, that the defendant was not liable for this injuryt common law, nor, in the absence of evidence that it was caused by a spring-gun or other engine “calculated to inflict grievous bodily harm,” under the statute 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 18, s. I.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Tear -v- Freebody (1858) 4 CBNS 228
1858


Torts - Other
The surveyor to a parish was found to have taken possession of the plaintiff's materials so as to obtain an unfounded lien over them.
1 Citers



 
 Regina -v- Inhabitants of High Halden; 1859 - (1859) 1 F & F 678; 26 Digest (Repl) 383; [1860] EngR 93; (1860) 175 ER 903

 
 Scholefield -v- Temper; 1859 - (1859) 4 De G & J 429; (1859) Johns 155; [1859] EngR 773
 
Grinham -v- Willey (1859) 4 H & N 496; (1859) 28 LJ 242; (1859) 33 LTOS 10; (1859) 23 JP 280; [1859] EngR 475; (1859) 157 ER 934
1859

Pollock CB
Torts - Other
A felony crime was reported to the police by the defendant. The police officer attended, and on the information supplied arrested the plaintiff who was taken to the police station and charged, signing the charge sheet. Held: The defendant was not liable to the plaintiff in an action for trespass. Pollock CB said: in the context of an arrest of a claimant by a constable following a complaint by a defendant, the defendant "ought not to be held responsible in trespass [to the claimant], unless he directly and immediately causes the imprisonment."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Chittenden -v- Day; 1860 - [1860] EngR 34 (B); (1860) 2 F & F 77
 
Rogers -v- Rajendro Dutt (1860) 13 Moo PC 209
1860
PC
Dr Lushington
Torts - Other
The plaintiff's claim failed because the conduct complained of had not been wrongful. Dr Lushington, giving the judgment of the Board, said: "For if the act which he [the defendant] did was in itself wrongful, as against the Plaintiffs, and produced damage to them, they must have the same remedy by action against the doer, whether the act was his own, spontaneous and unauthorized, or whether it were done by the order of the superior power". The plaintiff had, at trial, proved damages of Rs 6624.
1 Citers



 
 Gilding -v- Eyre And Another; CCP 8-Jul-1861 - [1861] EngR 793; (1861) 10 CB NS 592; (1861) 142 ER 584
 
Foster -v- Green (1862) 7 H & N 881
1862


Torts - Other
Cash may not be subject to a claim for conversion.
1 Citers


 
Scott -v- Wakem (1862) 3 F and F 328
1862

Baron Bramwell
Torts - Other, Health
If it could be shown to be necessary to protect him from harming himself, the common law gave power for a man to be detained.
1 Citers



 
 Felthouse -v- Bindley; QBD 8-Jul-1862 - [1862] EWHC QB J35; [1862] EWHC CP J35; [1862] EngR 931; (1862) 11 CB NS 869; (1862) 142 ER 1037
 
Buckley -v- Gross (1863) 3B & S 556
1863

Blackburn J, Cockburn CJ, Crompton J
Police, Torts - Other
The court had to decide the ownership of of tallow which had been kept at warehouses. In a fire; it melted and flowed down the sewers into the river where part of it was collected by a man with no right to it; and he sold it to the claimant. The police stopped the claimant and took him before a magistrate. The magistrate discharged the claimant. Under the section the magistrate had power, where the real owner was known, to make an order for the detention and subsequent delivery of goods "charged to be stolen or fraudulently obtained" to the rightful owner, and where the owner was unknown to order delivery to the receiver of the Metropolitan Police Force who was authorised, in the absence of a claim made by the real owner within 12 months, to sell them. Pursuant to these statutory provisions the magistrate made an order for the detention of the goods. The tallow became a nuisance and the police sold the tallow to the defendant before the 12 month period expired. The claimant then sued the defendant to recover it. The court directed a verdict for the defendant with leave to the claimant to move to enter judgment if the Court of Queen's Bench should be of the opinion that he could maintain his action. The court held that he could not. Cockburn CJ said: "Under these circumstances it appears to me plain that, by virtue of the authority vested in him by the statute, an order was made by the justice, within the scope of his authority and jurisdiction, with respect to dealing with this tallow, and whether the police were or were not warranted in selling it within twelve months is immaterial. The plaintiff, who had nothing but bare naked possession (which would have been sufficient against a wrong doer) had it taken out of him by virtue of this enactment. As against the plaintiff, therefore, the defendant derives title, not from a wrong doer, but from a person selling under authority of the justice, whether rightly or not is of no consequence. I wholly disagree with the doctrine of the plaintiff's counsel, that if the policeman did anything ultra vires, that would revest the possession of this tallow in the plaintiff. He had no title beyond what mere possession gave, and, so soon as the goods were taken from him by force of law, there was a break in the chain of that possession." Crompton J said: "This action must be founded on possession; here the possession was divested out of the plaintiff, and he cannot revert to a right of property to re-establish it. I agree with my Lord Chief Justice that, where possession is lawfully divested out of a man, and the property is ultimately converted by a person who does not claim through an original wrong doer, the party whose possession was so divested had no property at the time of the conversion. Here, in my mind, the plaintiff's possession was gone. The goods were properly taken from him ...." Blackburn J: "I do not wish to question the doctrine laid down in several cases, that possession of personal property is sufficient title against a wrong doer; nor that it is no answer to the plaintiff in such a case to say that there is a third person who could lawfully take the chattel from him; and I do not know that it makes any difference whether the goods had been feloniously taken or not. But, assuming that to be the law, the plaintiff has not brought himself within it. ... I draw the inference of fact that the justice was satisfied that this tallow had come from the warehouses, and I hold that, as matter of law, the police were bound to keep it for the true owner, because they had ascertained that there was a true owner, and who he was. Their possession was the possession of the true owner and not of the wrong doer, whose possession was terminated by their taking possession. It is therefore not necessary to consider whether the sale of the tallow to the defendants by the police was right or wrong. If wrong, the true owner may complain against them; if not, no one else can, but at all events, not the plaintiff, who was himself a wrong doer."
Metropolitan Police Act 1839 29
1 Citers


 
Symm -v- Fraser (1863) 3 F and F 859
1863

Cockburn CJ
Health, Torts - Other
The common law permitted the detention of those who were a danger, or potential danger, to themselves or others, in so far as this was shown to be necessary.
1 Citers



 
 Dawson -v- Vansandau; QBD 1863 - (1863) 11 WR 516

 
 Parton -v- Hill; 1864 - (1864) 10 LT 414
 
Leather Cloth Co Ltd -v- American Leather Cloth Co Ltd (1865) 11 HL Cas 523 HL(E)
1865
HL
Lord Kingsdown
Intellectual Property, Torts - Other
"Nobody doubts that a trader may be guilty of such misrepresentations with regard to his goods, as to amount to a fraud upon the public, and to disentitle him on that ground, as against a rival trader, to the relief in a court of equity which he might otherwise claim. What would constitute a misrepresentation of this description, may in particular cases be a reasonable subject of doubt, and it was in the present case the ground of the difference between the two judgments under consideration. The general rule seems to be that the mis-statement of any material fact calculated to deceive the public, will be sufficient for this purpose."
1 Citers



 
 Scott -v- The London and St Katherine Docks Co; CEC 1865 - (1865) 3 H & C 596

 
 Britton-v- The Royal Insurance Company; 1865 - [1865] EngR 66; (1865) 4 F & F 905; (1865) 176 ER 843
 
Stewart -v- Beaumont [1866] EngR 40; (1866) 4 F & F 1034; (1866) B)
1866


Torts - Other

[ Commonlii ]
 
Ball -v- Axten (1866) 4 F & F 1019; 176 ER 890
1866

Lord Cockburn CJ
Torts - Other
A defendant who was aiming to hit a farmer's dog and by mistake hit the farmer's wife who was trying to protect it was liable in assault.
1 Citers


 
Ball Et Uxor -v- Axten [1866] EngR 2; (1866) 4 F & F 1019; (1866) 176 ER 890
1866


Torts - Other

[ Commonlii ]
 
Aldworth -v- Stewart [1866] EngR 1; (1866) 4 F & F 957; (1866) 176 ER 865
1866


Torts - Other

[ Commonlii ]
 
Dawkins -v- Lord Rokeby [1866] EngR 5; (1866) 4 F & F 806; (1866) 176 ER 800
1866


Police, Torts - Other

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Woodhouse -v- Whiteley [1866] EngR 49; (1866) 4 F & F 1086; (1866) A)
1866


Torts - Other

[ Commonlii ]
 
The Glamotgansgire Iron And Coal Companu -v- Irvine [1866] EngR 45; (1866) 4 F & F 947; (1866) 176 ER 861
1866


Company, Torts - Other

[ Commonlii ]
 
Perionowsky -v- Freeman And Another [1866] EngR 13; (1866) 4 F & F 978; (1866) 176 ER 873
1866


Torts - Other

[ Commonlii ]
 
In re Gomersall (1875) 1 ChD 137
1867

Brett J
Torts - Other
Bills with a face value of £1,700 were purchased for £200. Held: Proof that the goods were purchased at a much lower price than the ordinary trade price is not absolute proof of bad faith but is very strong evidence of fraudulent knowledge.
1 Citers


 
Harrop -v- Hirst (1868) LR 4 Ex 43
1868


Torts - Other
The claim was for diverting water. Held: An action for diverting water is maintainable without proof of any actual personal damage, inasmuch as the act of the defendant might, if repeated often enough without interruption, furnish evidence in derogation of the plaintiff's legal rights. If you have an infringement of a legal right there is a right of action without actual damage being proved.
1 Citers


 
Austin -v- Dowling (1870) LR 5 CP 534
1870


Torts - Other
The defendant's wife falsely accused the plaintiff of a crime. He was arrested and taken to the police station where the police said they would not detain the plaintiff unless the defendant signed the charge sheet.


 
 Lister -v- Perryman; HL 1870 - (1870) LR 4 HL 521; (1870) 39 LJEx 177

 
 Johnson -v- Emerson; 1871 - (1871) Law Rep 6 Ex 329; (1871) LR 6 Ex 329
 
Fowler -v- Hollins (1872) LR 7 QB 616
1872

Cleasby J
Torts - Other
The plaintiff claimed in conversion of bales of cotton bought in good faith through a broker in Liverpool. Held: The purchasers were strictly liable. Cleasby J: "the liability under it is founded upon what has been regarded as a salutary rule for the protection of property, namely, that persons deal with the property in chattels or exercise acts of ownership over them at their peril."
1 Citers


 
Richardson -v- Silvester (1873) LR IX QB 34
1873

Blackburn J, Quain J, Archibald J
Torts - Other
An advertisement was placed in the press offering a farm house to let when the advertiser had no authority to let it. Held: The action gave rise to an action in deceit founded on the implied representation that he did have authority.
Blackburn J: "I think, in the present case, on the face of the particulars, especially when amended as proposed, a cause of action was disclosed. It must be taken upon the statement of the plaintiff that the advertisement was issued some indirect motive, and that the farm was not to be let. This amounts to a false representation. It was a false statement knowingly made and published in order to be read by persons who would be likely to be tenants of farms, and the natural consequence would be that the person who was desirous of becoming a tenant would, upon reading the advertisement, incur expense in looking at the farm. This, it is alleged, is what the plaintiff did. It must also be taken that this was a representation made to the plaintiff."
Quain J: "I think the particulars disclose a cause of action, which ought to have been heard on the merits. They in effect allege the plaintiff falsely, and well knowing he had no authority to sell the farm, represented that he had, and published an advertisement to that effect. It is quite clear that all persons who were likely to take a farm, or might be reasonably contemplating taking a farm, acting upon that advertisement, and incurring expense in consequence of that false representation, have a remedy by action for deceit. It appears to me that the particulars and the amendment do disclose a cause of action for deceit; and under such circumstances I think the judge ought to have heard the case, and the case should be sent back to him to be further heard."
1 Citers



 
 Ellis -v- Loftus Iron Co; 1874 - (1874) LR 10 CP 10

 
 Ellis -v- Loftus Iron Co; 1874 - (1874) LR 10 CP 10
 
Cattle -v- The Stockton Waterworks (1875) LR 10 QB 453
1875

Blackburn J
Land, Torts - Other
The owner of land had contracted with the plaintiff for him to build a tunnel under a road, along which there was a defective water pipe. The pipe leaked, and when the contractor started to dig, the water that had accumulated under the road flowed out, obstructing the works. This either reduced the contractor's profit or caused him to make a loss, and he claimed in Rylands v Fletcher. Held. The contractor had no title to claim.
Blackburn J said: "In the present case the objection is technical and against the merits, and we should be glad to avoid giving it effect. But if we did so, we should establish an authority for saying that, in such a case as that of Fletcher v. Rylands … the defendant would be liable, not only to an action by the owner of the drowned mine, and by such of his workmen as had their tools or clothes destroyed, but also to an action by every workman and person employed in the mine, who in consequence of its stoppage made less wages than he would otherwise have done. And many similar cases to which this would apply might be suggested. It may be said that it is just that all such persons should have compensation for such a loss, and that, if the law does not give them redress, it is imperfect. Perhaps it may be so. But, as was pointed out by Coleridge, J., in Lumley v. Gye . . Courts of justice should not "allow themselves, in the pursuit of perfectly complete remedies for all wrongful acts, to transgress the bounds, which our law, in a wise consciousness as I conceive of its limited powers, has imposed on itself, of redressing only the proximate and direct consequences of wrongful acts." In this we quite agree."
1 Citers



 
 Hollins -v- Fowler; HL 1875 - (1875) LR 7 HL 757
 
Brasyer -v- Maclean (1875) LR 6 PC 398
1875
PC

Torts - Other
(New South Wales) A false return was made by a sheriff which led to the arrest of the plaintiff and his attachment for 24 hours. The court had non-suited the plaintiff since no malice had been shown. Held: The appeal succeeded. It was "impossible to say that no damage was sustained by the Plaintiff in consequence of that arrest." The sheriff was guilty of a misfeasance and the damage resulting from the misfeasance was "sufficient damage to enable the Plaintiff to maintain an action against the sheriff for that misfeasance".
1 Citers


 
Dugdale -v- Lovering [1875] LR 10 CP 196
1875


Torts - Other
The court adopted the position proposed by Mr Cave, for the Plaintiff: "It is a general principle of law when an act is done by one person at the request of another which act is not in itself manifestly tortious to the knowledge of the person doing it, and such act turns out to be injurious to the rights of a third party, the person doing it is entitled to an indemnity from him who requested that it should be done".
1 Citers


 
Townsend -v- Haworth (1879) 48 LJ Ch 770
1875
CA
Sir George Jessel MR, Mellish LJ
Intellectual Property, Torts - Other
The defendant sold chemicals to be used by the purchaser in infringement of patent and agreed to indemnify the purchaser if the patent should prove to be valid. Held: Only the person who actually manufactures or sells infringing goods is the infringer except where the direct infringer is the "mere cat's-paw" of someone else.
Mellish LJ said: "Selling materials for the purpose of infringing a patent to the man who is going to infringe it, even although the party who sells it knows that he is going to infringe it and indemnifies him, does not by itself make the person who so sells an infringer. He must be a party with the man who so infringes and actually infringe."
1 Citers



 
 Wilson -v- Waddell; HL 1876 - (1876) 2 App Cas 95

 
 Hicks -v- Faulkner; 1878 - [1878] 8 QBD 167
 
Weir -v- Bell (1878) 3 Exch D 238
1878

Bramwell LJ
Contract, Torts - Other
"I think that every person who authorizes another to act for him in the making of any contract, undertakes for the absence of fraud in that person in the execution of the authority given, as much as he undertakes for its absence in himself when he makes the contract".
1 Citers



 
 Burgess -v- Northwich Local Board; 1880 - (1880) 6 QBD 264; [1880] LJQB 219; [1880] 44 LT 154; [1880] JP 256; [1880] 26 Digest (Repl) 352
 
Mitchell -v- Henry (1880) 15 Ch D 181
1880


Intellectual Property, Torts - Other
Passing off actions remained unaffected by the passing of the 1875 Act.
Trade-Marks Registration Act 1875
1 Citers



 
 Brownlie -v- Campbell; Brownlie -v- Miller; HL 1880 - (1880) 5 AC 925; (1880) 7 R (HL) 66

 
 Livingstone -v- Rawyards Coal Co; HL 1880 - (1880) 5 App Cas 25

 
 Danby -v- Beardsley; 1880 - (1880) 43 LT 603
 
National Mercantile Bank Ltd -v- Rymill [1881] 44 LTNS 767
1881
CA
Bramwell LJ, Brett and Cotton LJJ
Agency, Torts - Other
The plaintiff was the owner of horses the subject of a bill of sale. The grantor of the bill sold the horses privately in the defendant's auction yard and following the sale, on the grantor's instructions, the auctioneer delivered the horses to the buyer. It was held that there had been no conversion. Held: The auctioneer did not claim to transfer the title and did not purport to sell; all the dominion he exercised over the chattels was to redeliver them to the person to whom the man from whom he had received them had told him to redeliver them. On the evidence there had been no sale by the auctioneer. A bailee escapes liability for conversion, not only where he merely redelivers to his bailor, but where he delivers at the bailor's directions to a third party without knowledge of any adverse claim, though with knowledge that such delivery is in pursuance of a sale or other disposition.
1 Citers


 
Arkwright -v- Newbold (1881) 17 ChD 301
1881
CA
Cotton LJ
Damages, Torts - Other
Cotton LJ discussed the tort of deceit and said: "In my opinion, it would not be right in an action of deceit to give a plaintiff relief on the ground that a particular statement, according to the construction put on it by the court, is false, when the plaintiff does not venture to swear that he understood the statement in the sense which the court puts on it."
1 Citers



 
 Regina -v- Coney; QBD 1882 - (1882) 8 QBD 534

 
 Quartz Hill Consolidated Gold Mining Co -v- Eyre; CA 1883 - (1883) 11 QBD 674
 
Arbroath -v- North Eastern Railway (1883) II QBD 440
1883


Evidence, Torts - Other
In a case alleging malicious prosecution, the burden of proving absence of reasonable and probable cause is on the Plaintiff, who thus takes on the notoriously difficult task of proving a negative
1 Citers


 
Wandsworth Board of Works -v- United Telephone Co (1884) 13 QBD 904
1884
CA

Land, Torts - Other
A land-owner had the right to cut a wire wrongfully placed over his property.
1 Citers



 
 Smith -v- Land and House Property Corporation; CA 1885 - (1885) LR 28 Ch D 7

 
 Edgington -v- Fitzmaurice; CA 1885 - (1885) 29 Ch D 459

 
 Osborne -v- Milman; 1886 - (1886) 17 QBD 514
 
Blackburn, Low & Co -v- Vigors (1886) 17 QBD 553
1886
CA
Lord Esher MR, Lindley LJ,
Agency, Insurance, Torts - Other
Lord Esher MR: "This seems to me to be the true doctrine. The freedom from mis-representation or concealment is a condition precedent to the right of the assured to insist on the performance of the contract, so that on a failure of the performance of the condition the assured cannot enforce the contract." Lindley LJ: "It is a condition of the contract that there is no misrepresentation or concealment either by the assured or by anyone who ought as a matter of business and fair dealing to have stated or disclosed the facts to him or to the underwriter for him." Lord Halsbury LC warned against "the somewhat vague use of the word 'agent'" which, he said, "leads to confusion" in insurance cases.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Hope -v- Evered (1886) 17 QBD 338
1886


Torts - Other, Police
It is an actionable wrong to procure the issue of a search warrant without reasonable cause and with malice.
1 Citers


 
MacPherson -v- Scottish Rights of Way and Recreation Society Ltd (1887) 13 App Cas 744
1887


Scotland, Torts - Other

1 Citers



 
 Peek -v- Derry; CA 1887 - (1887) 37 ChD 541; [1887] 57 LJ Ch 347; [1887] 59 LT 78; [1887] 9 Digest (Rep 1) 127
 
Turner -v- Hockey (1887) 56 LJQB 301
1887


Torts - Other
The owner of a cow gave a bill of sale over it (and others) but then asked the defendant auctioneer to sell it. He did not inform the auctioneer of the bill of sale. Held: An auctioneer who unknowingly but in the ordinary course of business sells the goods of one person having been told they are the goods of another, and pays the proceeds of sale to that other, is not guilty of conversion of the goods. The original purchaser was not able to pursue an action against the auctioneer.
1 Citers



 
 Mogul Steamship Company Limited -v- McGregor Gow & Co; 1888 - (1888) 20 QBD 544

 
 Ex parte Lewis (The Trafalgar Square Case); QBD 1888 - (1888) 21 QBD 191

 
 The Queen -v- D'Eyncourt; 1888 - (1888) 21 QBD 109
 
Mogul Steamship Company Limited -v- McGregor Gow & Co (1889) 23 QBD 598
1889
CA
Lord Esher MR, Bowen LJ, Fry LJ
Torts - Other
Ship-owners formed an association which in this action others claimed to be a tortious conspiracy. Held: There is a cause of action against the conspirators where there is an agreement which constitutes an indictable conspiracy and that agreement is carried into execution by the conspirators by means of an unlawful act or acts which produce private injury to the claimant. "[M]alicious" was not to be given its ordinary meaning (malice in fact), but rather a technical legal meaning (malice in law), meaning an intention to carry out an act that was wrongful in order to damage another or to the detriment of another, or to hurt another. Bowen LJ: "No man, whether trader or not, can however justify damaging another in his commercial business by fraud or misrepresentation. Intimidation, obstruction and molestation are forbidden; so is the intentional procurement or violation of individual rights, contractual or other, assuming always that there is no just cause for it … but the defendants have been guilty of none of these acts. They have done nothing more against the plaintiffs than pursue to the bitter end a war of competition waged in the context of their own trade. To the argument that a competition so pursued ceases to have a just cause or excuse when there is ill-will or a personal intention to harm it is sufficient to reply (as I have already pointed out) that there was here no personal intention to do any other than such as was necessarily involved in the desire to attract to the defendant's ships the entire tea freights of the ports."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Derry -v- Peek; HL 1-Jul-1889 - (1889) 14 App Cas 337; [1889] 58 LJ Ch 864; [1889] 61 LT 265; [1889] 54 JP 148; [1889] UKHL 1

 
 Marks -v- Beyfus; 1890 - (1890) 25 QBD 494

 
 Angus -v- Clifford; 1891 - [1891] 2 Ch 449

 
 Montgomery -v- Thompson; HL 1891 - [1891] AC 217

 
 Barker -v- Furlong; 1891 - (1891) 2 CH 172

 
 Brown -v- Hawkes; CA 1891 - [1891] 1 QB 718

 
 New Orleans and Northeastern Railroad Company -v- Jopes; 1891 - (1891) 142 US 18

 
 Barnardo -v- Ford; HL 1892 - [1892] AC 326

 
 Mogul Steamship Co Ltd -v- McGregor, Gow & Co; HL 1892 - [1892] AC 25
 
Consolidated Co -v- Curtis & Son (1892) 1 QB 495
1892
QBD

Torts - Other, Agency
An auctioneer who sold and delivered goods the subject of a bill of sale. An auctioneer who sells and delivers is liable in conversion because he is acting as more than a mere broker or intermediary. Held: It is not easy to draw the line at the precise point where a dealing with goods by an intermediary becomes a conversion. The difficulty is diminished by remembering that in trover the original possession was by a fiction deemed to be lawful … and some act had therefore to be shown constituting a conversion by the defendant of the chattel to his own use, some act incompatible with a recognition on his part of the continuous right of the true owner to the dominion over it. All acts which are consistent with the duty of a mere finder such as the safeguarding by warehousing or asportation for the like purpose, may well be looked upon as entirely compatible with the right of the true owner, and, therefore, as not constituting a conversion by the defendant. The test may be whether there is an intent to interfere in any manner with the title of or ownership in the chattel, not merely with the possession. The difficulty is rather in drawing the true inference from facts in particular cases than in grasping the principle. There can be no conversion by a mere bargain and sale without a transfer of possession. The act, unless in market overt, is merely void, and does not change the property or the possession: Lancashire Wagon Co. v Fitzhugh A fortiori, mere intervention as broker or intermediary in a sale by others is not a conversion.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 The Walter D Wallet; 1893 - [1893] P 202
 
Morley -v- Loughnan [1893] Ch 736
1893

Wright J
Torts - Other, Undue Influence
Wright J in the context of this claim for undue influence, relied on a passage from an earlier case in which Wilmot CJ had said, "Let the hand receiving [a gift] be ever so chaste, yet, if it comes through a polluted channel, the obligation of restitution will follow it".
1 Citers



 
 Lemmon -v- Webb; CA 1894 - [1894] 3 Ch 1

 
 Lemmon -v- Webb; HL 27-Nov-1894 - [1895] AC 1; [1894] UKHL 1

 
 Anderson -v- Gorrie; CA 1895 - [1895] 1 QB 668

 
 Mayor of Bradford -v- Pickles; HL 29-Jul-1895 - [1895] AC 587; [1895] UKHL 1

 
 Reddaway & Co Ltd -v- Banham & Co Ltd; HL 1896 - [1896] AC 199; (1895) 1 QB 286; 13 RPC 218; [1895-96] All ER 133
 
Fitzgerald -v- Firbank [1897] 2 Ch 96
1897

Lindley LJ, Rigby LJ
Torts - Other
The owner of a right of fishing asserted a cause of action without proof of special damage against someone who had polluted the river in which the right was exercised. Held: A right of fishing was of such a nature that a person who enjoyed it had such possessory rights that he could bring an action for trespass at common law for the infringement of those rights. Rigby LJ: "There was another point about several fishery which we do not need to deal with, because the decision of the Queen's Bench was overruled in that respect. But the important point was whether the grantee could sue in trespass, and in the Court of Exchequer Chamber it was held that he might. The Court of Exchequer Chamber said that it was not necessary for them to decide the question whether the count might not be a count in case, but that they saw no reason to doubt that the Queen's Bench were right on that point. But that does not mean that the plaintiff can only sue in trespass. I cannot doubt, on the construction of the grant, the right of the plaintiffs by virtue of that grant to sue for a wrongful act which operates as a disturbance of the rights granted by the deed. The argument was pushed with the greatest courage to this extent – that a wrongdoer, unless he tried to do the very thing that the grantees were authorised to do, might destroy the whole subject-matter of the grant and be liable to no action. I never met with any case which gave the slightest colour to such a doctrine. I hold that the grantees of the incorporeal hereditament have a right of action against any person who disturbs them either by trespass or by nuisance, or in any other substantial manner."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Wilkinson -v- Downton; 1897 - [1897] 2 QB 57

 
 Allen -v- Flood; HL 1898 - [1898] AC 1

 
 Innes -v- Short and Beal; 1898 - (1898) 15 RPC 449

 
 Manners -v- Whitehead; SCS 1898 - (1898) 1 F 171; 36 Sc LR 94; 6 SLT 190
 
Llandudno Urban District Council -v- Woods [1899] 2 Ch 705
1899


Torts - Other
A clergyman set up a pulpit and was holding services and delivering addresses on the seashore. Held: An injunction was refused. The court discouraged actions for trespass on public highways where the inteference was trivial. In this case, although he had no right to do what he was doing, it was harming nobody.
1 Citers


 
The Bulli Coal Mining Company -v- Patrick Hill Osbourne and Another [1899] AC 351; [1899] UKPC 13
1899
PC

Torts - Other, Commonwealth
(New South Wales)
1 Citers

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