The Sun.
London, England, 1830-01-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OP KING'S BENCH, J. 22.
TAYLOR V. TRUEILAN AND OTHERS.

This was an action of trover, to recover the value
of ten chests of indigo. The plaintiffs were mer
chants et Liverpool, and had employed a Mr. Nevett,
of the firm of William Nevett and Son, commission-
agents, to purchase for them a quantity of indigo.
The money for the purchase was remitted to Mr.
Nevett in London, and he obtained possession of the
warrants. Being in pecuniary difficulties, Mr. Ne-
vett had previously procured an advance of money
from the defendants (who were brokers in London)
on the pledge of other warrants belonging to the
house of Maxwell and Co.; and the latter having
called on him to hand over the warrants to them,
he applied to the defendants to take the plaintiff's
warrants in substitution for the others. This ryas
agreed to, and the warrants in question having been
deposited with the defendants, they obtained pos-
session of the indigo, and sold it. Under these cir-
cumstances, the present action was brought to re-
cover the value.

A verdict was entered for the plaintiffs.
Lo►d TENTERDEN said, if all who had dealings
with those persons called commission-agents would
treat them as persons such as he (Lord Tenterden)
deemed them to be, no such cases as those would be
heard of.

SIIFILD, ESQ., V. NOEL, BART.

This was an action to recover damages for a
breach of covenant.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the plaintiff, Mr.
Henry Shedd, complained of a breach of contract,
on the part of the defendant, Sir Gerard Noel, of
whom he had purchased a small estate in the county
of Leicester; and the question was, whether a
covenant which Sir Gerard had entered into in the
purelatse-deed to the plaintiff, had or bad not been
broken. Mr. Sheik' had an uncle who, some time
before the purchase in question, had made a pur-
chase of Sir Gerard of a large property, .conti-
guous to which were some cottages, which Mr.
Sheild, the plaintiff, was desirous of purchasing,
thinking, probably, that one of these days the whole
property would come into his hands. He accord-
ingly made application to the solicitor of Sir Gerard
Noel, and through him entered into a contract for
the purchase of the cottages, at the price of 2144
The deeds of conveyance were afterwards prepared,
and certain persone , who were mortgagees of the
estate, and otliers ‘.s.lto were trustees, were nude
panics." Among the covenants which Sir Gerard
Noel entered into with the plaintiff, was one to the
effect, that notwithstanding any act or deed, by him
or any of his ancestors, or any persons deriving title
under him or them done or executed, or knowingly
permitted to the contrary, the conveying parties had
in them full power and absolute authority to convey
the piemises. The estate, it would appear, had
been the property of Sir Gerard's father, who had
permitted the cottages to be. occupied, first, by
several poor persons, and afterwards by the over-
seers of the parish, who had placed some of their
paupers in them, and they had been permitted to eons
bare the occupation for more than 20 years, with-
out any payment of rent or acknowledgment of
title. By this means an adverse title had been ac-
quired; arid when the plaintiff's agent went to-re-
ceive the rents , he was told that no rent had bean
formerly paid, and none would be paid now. An
action of ejectment was accordingly brought for the
purpose of trying the question of title. The trial
took place at the Assizes at Leicester, before-Mr;
Justice Holroyd, when, on the part of the plaintiff,
a title was adduced us far back as the year 1750,
and a deed of conveyance in 1774 was produced,
showing that the title to the cottages was rested
in the family of Sir Gerard Noel ; bur Air did not
appear that after that time Sir Gerard's father had
received any rent, or had any acknowledgment of
title from the tenants. The action was defended on
the ground that an adverse title had been acquired
by a possession of upwards of 20 years, and the
plaintiff, not being able to make out a case in oppo-
sition to the tenants, the Learned Judge held that
he was not entitled to recover. The present action,
therefore, was brought to recover damages against
Sir Gerard Noel, on his covenant to the plaintiff
contained in the purchase-deed.
Lord TENTERDEN reserved leave to the defendant
to move for a nonsuit.—A verdict was then taken
for 56W.