| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="PaperTopics" |
|---|
Attached a case (Drake v. Royman) that needs translation; overall still a work in progress. -- LuisVilla? | | | resources still to digest
- Pollock and Maitland on bailment: covers early history; suggests that an absolute rule may have been the case c. 1200, per Glanvill x. 18, but that even as early as Bracton (f. 62b, 99) there was at least sometimes a mitigating factor for diligence (which Southcote ignores.)
| |
<
< |
- Lane v. Cotton, 12 Mod. 473; 88 ER 1458. Holt in dicta distinguishes Southcote's case, saying that it is good law for the case of a special bailment, and including the case where the bailee is a government agent as a special bailment, but that the general rule of the case does not hold.
| >
> |
- LanevCotton, 12 Mod. 473; 88 ER 1458. Holt in dicta distinguishes Southcote's case, saying that it is good law for the case of a special bailment, and including the case where the bailee is a government agent as a special bailment, but that the general rule of the case does not hold.
| | | resources still to find
- 33 Hen. 6. pl. 1: when a gaol is broken open, the gaoler can be charged because 'he hath his remedy over'
- Woodlife's Case, Moo. 462; Mosley v. Fossett, Moo. 543: in which the other judges (who did not rule on Southcote) differ from Gawdy and Clench on bailment cases, per 11 HLR 161
- Ld. Raymond, 3d. ed: Call # Rep 1775g. Apparently adds an annotation that the rule 'was denied to be law by the whole case, ex relatione Magistri Bunbury.'
| |
>
> |
- Kettle v. Bromsall, Willes, 118 ( Story says this contemporary, post-Coggs case 'seems to admit the general correctness of Southcote's case on the point actually in judgment', which is to say in the case where the bailor has undertaken a special bailment.)
- Williams v. Lloyd, 1 Jones, 179; s.c. Palmer, 549; 22 Liber Assisarum, 41; (cases which story says are earlier than Southcote and disagree)
| | | cases cited by Holt against Southcote in Coggs: | |
>
> |
- 29 Ass. 28: "the opinion is, that the bailee is not chargeable, if the goods are stole."
- 8 Edw. 2, Fitz. Detinue 59: "where goods were locked in a chest, and left with the bailee, and the owner took away the key, and the goods were stolen, and it was held that the bailee should not answer for the goods. That case they say differs, because the bailer did not trust the bailee with them. But I cannot see the reason of that difference, nor why the bailee should not be charged with goods in a chest, as well as with goods out of a chest. For the bailee has as little power over them, when they are out of a chest, as to any benefit he might have by them, as when they are in a chest; and he has as great power to defend them in one case as in the other."
- 9 Edw. 4, 40 b. was but a debate at Bar. For Danby was but a counsel then, though he had been Chief Justice in the beginning of Ed. 4, yet he was removed, and restored again upon the restitution of Hen. 6, as appears by Dugdale's Chronica Series. So that what he said cannot be taken to be any authority, for he spoke only for his client; and Genney for his client said the con- trary.
- 3 Hen. 7, 4, is but a sudden opinion and that but by half the Court; and yet that is the only ground' for this opinion of my Lord Coke, which besides he has improved.
| | | cases cited by 11 HLR 161 to show no precedent to Southcote:
- 3 E. 4, 15 pl 7 by Littleton 1462
|
|