Excerpt from The English Reports, Vol. 159: Exchequer Division XV, Containing Hurlstone and Coltman, Vols. 2 and Wilson; Daniell; Younge

The question for our decision is, whether the Bills of Sale Act operates to avoid this transaction upon the ground that the instruments were not registered under it, and that there was no such complete delivery of possession by the vendor as to take the case out of that statute.

I am of Opinion that the possession of the plaintiff, the vendee of the goods, was so complete that the provisions of the statute do not apply. The timber at the public wharf was completely under his control; it was in his possession as far as it was capable of being, and it was not in the possession of the vendor. As to the timber on the private wharf the plaintiff had actually sold a part of it; the key of the wharf had been delivered to him, and he had manual control over the timber. The furniture in the house was as much in his possession as it could be. The question raised is, indeed, as my brother Martin remarked during the argument, rather one of fact than of law. In the course of the argument the case of Sheridan v. M 'cartney (11 Irish Com. Law Rep. 506) was cited on the part of the defendant. I do not desire to question the correctness of that decision, although there are other authorities with which that case is apparently at variance but the judgment of the Court there professes to proceed upon a liberal construction of this Act, which in my judgment ought not to be strained from its true construction. If any class of Acts ought to be construed strictly, it should be those which, having for their object the prevention of fraud, have in certain cases a tendency to invalidate bona fide contracts. Where fraud does not exist, this Act should at all events receive no more than its true con struction. [9] But whether the decision of that case be correct or not it differs widely from the present. The ground upon which the judgment of the Court there professed to proceed was, that where, upon the sale of a growing crop, the land had remained in the possession of the owner, without lease or demise of any kind to the vendee, the instrument by which the growing crop was disposed of ought to have been registered, and that not being so, the crop remained in the possession of the owner of the soil. But no question of that kind arises here. The property which was here seized was in the possession and under the control of the plaintiff. I am therefore of opinion that this rule should be discharged.

About the Publisher

Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com

This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.