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/ssactsengr0185 and id is 1 raw text is: 32 EAGLETON 11. THE EAST INDIA COMPANY 8 BOB. & PUL. 56.
EAGLETON v. THE EAST INDIA COMPANY. Feb. 10th, 1802.
[Referred to, Kruse v. Johnson, [1898] 2 Q. B. 108.]
The sales of the E. I. Company being subject to a regulation that any buyer not making
good the remainder of his purchase money on or before the day limited for such
payment should forfeit the deposit, and should be rendered incapable of buying
again at any future sale until be shall have given satisfaction to the Court of
Directors; Held that the term satisfaction must be held to mean pecuniary com-
pensation for the non-performance of his agreement to pay on the appointed day,
and that a buyer having made default on that day, but afterwards within a further
time given to him by the E. I. Company paid the remainder of the purchase-money
with interest, might maintain an action against the E. I. Company for refusing to
permit him to become a bidder at their sales, such sales being by 9 & 10 W. 3, c. 44,
s. 69, declared to be public and open sales*.-Qure, Whether since the passing of
18 Geo. 2, c. 26, which regulates the deposits, forfeitures, and capacities of bidders
at the tea sales of the E. I. Company, the E. I. Company can make or enforce any
other regulations affecting those sales than such as the act of Parliament has enacted ?
This was a special action on the case brought by the Plaintiff to recover damages
against the East India Company for refusing to declare him the best bidder for certain
teas put up to public sale by the Company, and for refusing to accept the deposit upon
such biddings, or to sell him the said teas.
The first count of the declaration stated, that the Plaintiff had for a long time
carried on the trade of a tea-dealer, and as such had been used to bid for and buy large
quantities of tea at the public sales of the East India Company, and to sell the same
again to his customers, and thereby to gain great profit; that he was lawfully entitled
to become such bidder and buyer, and that on the 17th of June 1801, the East India
Company had a public sale of tea by inch of candle, and the Plaintiff did bid for divers
[56] lots, to wit, &c. (setting out the lots) and became the best bidder for the same,
and that the East India Company of right ought to have declared him the best bidder;
but that they well knowing the premises, and intending to injure him, refused to
declare him the best bidder for the same, or to sell the same to him, but sold them to
other persons to him unknown ; and although the Plaintiff at the time when according
to the form of the statute in that case made and provided the deposits upon the teas
sold at the said sale ought to have been made to wit, on, &c. tendered to the East
India Company his deposits in that behalf, to wit, at, &c. they refused to receive the
same. The second count was in the same form as the first, but related to different
lots; and was followed by an allegation of special damage, stating, that by reason of
the premises the Plaintiff was deprived of the teas, and of great advantage which would
have arisen to him in case the East India Company had sold them to him as of right
they ought to have done, and was prevented from carrying on his trade in as beneficial
a manner as he might otherwise have done. The third count was for refusing to declare
him the best bidder for other lots of teas, or to sell the same to him. The fourth and
fifth counts were for refusing to sell other lots to the Plaintiff, for which he had become
the best bidder. And the sixth count was in trover for 500 chests of teas.
The Defendants pleaded the general issue-Not guilty.
The cause came on to be tried at the Guildhall Sittings after last Trinity term
before Lord Alvanley Ch. J. when a verdict was found for the Plaintiff, damages one
shilling, subject to the opinion of the Court upon the following case :
The Plaintiff is a tea dealer and a subject of Great Britain, and as such accustomed
to bid for and buy teas at the public sales of teas of the East India Company, and to
sell the same again in the course of his trade. The East India Company having put
up teas for sale in the manner stated in the declaration, the Plaintiff was the best
bidder at those sales for the teas specified in the declaration. The East India Company
refused his biddings, or to sell him the teas, and the same were sold to other persons.
The Plaintiff tendered the deposits as stated in the declaration, and the East India
Company refused to accept them. At the sales to which the declaration relates, and
* And see Neave v. Pratt, 2 N. R. 408, 411.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0185&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)