热点关注
 |
卡利尔诉碳烟幕弹公司案 CARLILL v． CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL CO． |
|
论香港电影、电视剧中的律师形象及律师伦理：胡惠生先生的主题演讲 |
|
论我国承认与执行外国法院判决的法律依据 |
|
双边投资条约中的几个问题 |
|
国际经济法基本问题论纲 |
|
关于在中国法律教育中进行案例教学的思考 |
相关文章
|
国际贸易争议与仲裁(经济管理类课程教材·国际贸易系列) |
|
如愿意投稿或有什么建议或问题，请致函网站编辑部 版权所有@2005 国际经济法网 |
|
Armory v Delamirie |
|||||
|
时间：2010-07-26
点击：
|
|||||
|
Armory v Delamirie
1 January 1721
(1721) 1 Strange 505
93 E.R. 664
1721
In Middlesex coram Pratt C.J.
[S. C. 1 Sm. L. C. (1903 ed.) 356. Observed upon, White v. Mullett , 1851, 6 Ex. 714; Bridges v. Hawkesworth , 1851, 21 L. J. Q. B. 77. Inapplicable, Wentworth v. Lloyd , 1864, 10 H. L. C. 589. See Hammersmith Railway Company v. Brand , 1869, L. R. 4 H. L. 224; Taunton Election Petition , 1869, 21 L. T. 173; Mussammat Sundar v. Mussammat Parbati , 1889, L. R. 16 Ind. App. 193; Keighley, Maxsted & Company v. Durant [1901], A. C. 255; The Winkfield [1902], P. 55].
Finder of a jewel may maintain trover.
The plaintiff being a chimney sweeper's boy found a jewel and carried it to the defendant's shop (who was a goldsmith) to know what it was, and delivered it into the hands of the apprentice, who under pretence of weighing it, took out the stones, and calling to the master to let him know it came to three halfpence, the master offered the boy the money, who refused to take it, and insisted to have the thing again; whereupon the apprentice delivered him back the socket without the stones. And now in trover against the master these points were ruled:
1. That the finder of a jewel, though he does not by such finding acquire an absolute property or ownership, yet he has such a property as will enable him to keep it against all but the rightful owner, and consequently may maintain trover.
2. That the action well lay against the master, who gives a credit to his apprentice, and is answerable for his neglect 1 .
3. As to the value of the jewel several of the trade were examined to prove what a jewel of the finest water that would fit the socket would be worth; and the Chief Justice directed the jury, that unless the defendant did produce the jewel, and shew it not to be of the finest water, they should presume the strongest against him, and make the value of the best jewels the measure of their damages: which they accordingly did.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Jones v. Hart , Salk. 44l. Cor. Holt C.J. Mead v. Hamond , supra. Grammer v. Nixon , post, 653.
|
|||||
|
|||||