HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0048 and id is 1 raw text is: BIGNOLD V. WATERHOUSE
[Le Blanc J. There was no evidence that it was a gift. Bayley J. It was not put at
the trial as a gift; the only question made was whether the property passed.]
Lord Ellenborough C.J. I think the verdict is according to the law and the facts,
as they appeared before the jury. To be sure the evidence was strong to repel the
presumption of its being a gift to the mother, supposing that point had been made at
the trial; for such a presumption would have defeated the very object for which the
purchase was made, by vesting the property in the husband, and thereby rendering it
subject to his debts. As to the point respecting the change of property; what was
done respecting it was not done secretly, but the trust-deed was known and advertised
in the public papers; and the sale under it was by public auction. The trustees,
indeed, for a time, allow the wife to continue in possession after the assignment ; and
do not themselves interfere with the goods by removing them, except on occasion of
the man's coming in and taking away the saw; which, however, is a circumstance in
the case, although I do not much rely upon [254] it: but when the sale took place,
the plaintiff removed a part of the goods, and the rest only he suffered to remain with
his mother for her accommodation. At all events an effectual change took place in
September, when the house was retaken by the plaintiff, at an advanced rent; but it
seems to me there was a bonft fide change before that time: to hold otherwise would
be to pronounce that a person could not make a bonh fide purchase of goods in the
possession of another for his accommodation, and for the purpose of continuing them
in the same possession.
Le Blanc J. Clee absconded, and never returned except on Sundays. The plaintiff
purchased for the benefit of his mother. It does not therefore strike me that if the
question had been raised at the trial, the jury would have found it a gift to the
mother; because the transaction was intended to protect the goods for her use, and
not to subject them to the incumbrances of the husband. As to the change of posses-
sion ; part of the goods sold to the plaintiff was removed by him, and he afterwards
took the house of the landlord at an advanced rent. Under these circumstances it
appears to me that the deed was not fraudulent as against the creditor who had
notice.
Bayley J. The possession did not give to Clee any false credit in the neighbourhood.
The transaction as to the assignment was perfectly notorious, and Collins had notice
of it; and I think it is impossible to say that the possession of the goods was left with
the mother in such a way as to be fraudulent on the part of the plaintiff. It was
notorious in the neighbourhood that a [255] part of the goods was sold to the plaintiff,
and some of them removed, and that the rest were only left in the possession of the
mother for her accommodation.
Rule refused (a).
THOMAS BIGNOLD AND JOHN COCKSEDGE BIGNOLD against WILLIAM WATERHOUSE,
JOHN WATERHOUSE, SAMUEL WATERHOUSE, JOHN WATSON, AND THOMAS
COLDWELL. Thursday, May 6th, 1813. Where it was agreed between the
plaintiff and one of the defendants, proprietors of a stage coach, to carry certain
parcels for the plaintiff free of expence, which were accordingly carried for two
years, but there was no evidence of any knowledge of this agreement by the
other defendants; and the defendants had given notice that they would not be
accountable for parcels above the value of 51., unless entered and paid for, &c.
Held, that the defendants were not liable for the loss of a parcel of above the
value of 51., sent by the plaintiff under this agreement, of which no notice of its
value had been given to the defendants.
Case against the defendants, proprietors of the Norwich coach, for the loss of a
parcel containing bank notes and bills delivered to the defendants to be carried from
Norwich to London, and there delivered to Messrs. Fraser and Co., bankers.
At the trial before Bayley J., at the London sittings, after last Michaelmas term,
it appeared that the plaintiffs were bankers residing at Norwich, and the defendants
proprietors of the mail coach from Norwich to London. Early in the year 1810, a
person who was one of the proprietors of another coach, called the old Norwich coach,
intending to relinquish a part of his interest in that concern, and having promised the
(a) See 2 Bos. & Pull. 59, Kidd v. Bawlinson.
1 X. & S. 254.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0048&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)