English Legal History and its Materials

View   r3  >  r2  >  r1
SouthcotesCase 3 - 11 Nov 2008 - Main.LuisVilla
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="PaperTopics"

Southcote's Case

Line: 8 to 8
 the judges in London had never followed it. How did it come to be decided ... or was it decided?
Deleted:
<
<
(I'd like to take this. --LuisVilla)
 \ No newline at end of file
Added:
>
>

NB

May also be spelled as Southcott or Southcot. (Defendant is Bennett or Bennet.)

Notes/Research In Progress

I'm working on this; comments from here down are notes, research, etc.- a work in progress. --LuisVilla

Holmes says of the case: "The attempts of Lord Holt in Coggs v. Bernard, and of Sir William Jones in his book on Bailments, to show that Southcote v. Bennet was not sustained by authority, were futile, as any one who will Study the Year Books for himself may see. The same principle was laid down seven years before by Peryam, C. B., in Drake v. Royman, and Southcote's Case was followed as a leading precedent without question for a hundred years." OTOH, a brief piece says that Holmes is 'the only positive reference' to Southcote's case in the past hundred years; Drake v. Royman is also overruled(?): DRAKE v. ROYMAN, Sav. 133. That an executor cannot maintain trover, if the conversion was in the lifetime of the testator. Overruled. Crosier v. Ogleby, 1 Stra. 60; Badlam v. Tucker, I Pick. 389.

See also discussion in William Jones, Bailments:

"The reason of the judgment," says Lord Coke, "was, because the plaintiff had delivered the goods to be safely kept, and the defendant had taken the charge of them upon himself, by accepting them on such a delivery." Had the reporter stopped here, I do not see what possible objection could have been made; but his exuberant erudition boiled over, and produced the frothy conceit which has occasioned so many reflections on the case itself; namely, "that to keep and to keep safely are one and the same thing;" [...]

Coggs v. Bernard, besides overturning, has an extensive set of rebutting citations to show that this was 'never' the rule before this case.


SouthcotesCase 2 - 21 Oct 2008 - Main.LuisVilla
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="PaperTopics"
Deleted:
<
<
 

Southcote's Case

Why is Southcote's Case, 4 Co. Rep. 83b; Cro. Eliz. 815 (1601)? The

Line: 8 to 7
 disturb Coggs v. Bernard, which overruled it, and where Holt said that the judges in London had never followed it. How did it come to be decided ... or was it decided?
Added:
>
>
(I'd like to take this. --LuisVilla)
 \ No newline at end of file

SouthcotesCase 1 - 21 Oct 2008 - Main.EbenMoglen
Line: 1 to 1
Added:
>
>
META TOPICPARENT name="PaperTopics"

Southcote's Case

Why is Southcote's Case, 4 Co. Rep. 83b; Cro. Eliz. 815 (1601)? The rule never appealed to anyone before or since, as no one has ever tried to disturb Coggs v. Bernard, which overruled it, and where Holt said that the judges in London had never followed it. How did it come to be decided ... or was it decided?


Revision 3r3 - 11 Nov 2008 - 04:56:54 - LuisVilla
Revision 2r2 - 21 Oct 2008 - 19:16:25 - LuisVilla
Revision 1r1 - 21 Oct 2008 - 04:10:42 - EbenMoglen
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM