"may have been taken by or given to any other person."] That definition of "apparent possession" does not apply to goods remaining on the premises of the assignor after they have been taken in execution. But, assuming that it does, the statute evidently contemplates an apparent possession continuing beyond the twenty-one days. Field was then called upon to support the rule. Field, in support of the rule. The statute requires that the bill of sale should have been filed before the goods are actually seized under process against the assignor; whether or not the seizure takes place within the twenty-one days. [Hill J. Are you not bound to shew that the apparent possession by the assignor continued beyond the twenty-one days? Wightman J. If the time allowed by the Act for filing the bill of sale has not elapsed before the goods are taken in execution, how has the assignee, at the time of the seizure, failed to comply with the requirements of the Act?] COCKBURN C. J. This is a very clear case. The statute requires that, in order that a bill of sale of goods may be null and void as against the assignee, the assignor shall be left in apparent possession of the goods for twenty-one days after the bill of sale is given, and that the bill of sale shall not have been filed within that period. The assignee has, therefore, twenty-one days from the date of the bill of sale, within which either to take the goods out of the assignor's possession, or to perfect his own title to them by filing the bill of sale. During the 1861. MARPLES V. HARTLEY. 1861. MARPLES V. HARTLEY. twenty-one days the assignee has at all events a temporary title to the goods of which he cannot be deprived by their seizure by the sheriff. WIGHTMAN J. and HILL J. concurred. Rule discharged. Wednesday, February 6th. c. 19. s. 1. ANDERSON against The MIDLAND Railway Stat. 11 G. 2. THE first count of the declaration alleged that defendants were common carriers, for hire, of goods and "In case any chattels, from a certain station, at Defford, in the county enacts that tenant" "for life or lives, term of years, at will, suffer of Gloucester, to Bristol; and that, on 24th September, 1859, plaintiff caused to be delivered to them, as such carriers, certain goods and chattels, to be taken care of and carried by them from the said station at Defford to hereditaments, Bristol. Breach, that defendants did not carry the said ance, or otherwise, of any messuages, lands, tenements, or upon the demise or holding whereof any rent is or shall be reserved, due, or made payable, shall fraudulently or clandestinely convey away" "from such premises, his" "goods or chattels, to prevent the landlord" "from distraining the same for arrears of rent so reserved, due, or made payable," the landlord may, within thirty days next after such fraudulent removal, follow and seize the goods as a distress for the arrears of rent due. A., in May, 1859, entered into an agreement, not under seal, with M., by which M. agreed forthwith to grant A. a valid lease under seal of a house and premises, for three years from 25th May, 1859, at the yearly rent of 847., payable quarterly. The agreement specified the lessor's and lessee's covenants to be contained in the lease; and it concluded as follows; "It is hereby mutually agreed that these presents shall operate as an agreement only; and that, until a lease shall be executed, the rent, covenants and agreements agreed to be therein reserved and contained shall be paid and observed, and the several rights and remedies shall be enforced, in the same manner as if the same had been actually executed." No lease was drawn up, but 4. entered into possession, and remained till a quarter's rent became due, when he fraudulently removed his goods from the premises, to prevent their being distrained. Held that the agreement, coupled with 4.'s entry into possession, made A. tenant at will to M. at a fixed reserved rent, for which M. had a right to distrain; and that, therefore, M. was entitled, under stat. 11 G. 2. c. 19. s. 1., to follow and seize 4.'s goods. goods to Bristol; and that, by defendant's negligence, the said goods were wholly lost to plaintiff. Second count. For that the goods were so delivered to defendants, to be carried to Bristol, as in the first count mentioned; and that defendants promised plaintiff to carry them safely to Bristol and deliver them to plaintiff there, within a reasonable time. Breach, that defendants would not, within such reasonable time, carry the said goods to Bristol, or deliver them there to plaintiff, and that the said goods were wholly lost to plaintiff. Third count. Trover for the goods. Pleas. 1. To first count, except to so much of the breach as charges negligence and carelessness: That, before the delivery of the said goods to defendants, plaintiff, then being a tenant for a term of years of a messuage and hereditaments, upon the demise of which rent was reserved, fraudulently and clandestinely did convey from such messuage and hereditaments the said goods and chattels in the said first count mentioned, the same then being his goods and chattels, to prevent one Marsden, the landlord, from distraining the same for certain arrears of the said rent then due and payable; and brought the same to the said station, and then, as in the said first count mentioned, caused the same to be delivered to the defendants at the said station. Averments: That, within the space of thirty days next ensuing the said carrying away of the said goods and chattels, and before the committing of the breach herein pleaded to, or any part thereof, the said Marsden, being such landlord as aforesaid, took and seized the said goods and chattels, then found at the said station, as a distress for the said arrears of the said rent, as the said Marsden law 1861. ANDERSON V. MIDLAND Railway Company. 1861. ANDERSON v. MIDLAND Railway Company. fully might, according to the statute in such case made and provided; and that defendants, by their servants, suffered the said seizure to be made, and afterwards, at the request of the said Marsden, the said arrears still continuing due, kept the same impounded as such distress, at the said station, for the said Marsden, until the said Marsden, while the said arrears were still due, took the same as such distress out of the possession of defendants with their consent, and sold the same under the said distress; whereby the same were lost to the plaintiff, and the defendants were prevented from carrying the said goods, and committed the breach herein pleaded to. Issue thereon. 2. A similar plea to the second count. Issue thereon. At the trial, before Hill J., at the Worcestershire Summer Assizes, 1860, it appeared that the plaintiff, in the month of April, 1859, had entered into a negotiation with a Mrs. Marsden, for the hiring of a house and premises at Kempsey, in Worcestershire, of which she was the owner. In May, 1859, an agreement was entered into between Mrs. Marsden and the plaintiff, which, so far as it is material, was as follows." An agreement," "whereby the said H. Marsden agrees to and with the said G. Anderson," " that the said H. Marsden" "will, by indenture to be forthwith prepared, and to be duly executed by the said parties hereto, grant unto the said G. Anderson" "a valid lease in law of all that dwelling house and premises" &c., " to hold the same unto the said G. Anderson, for the term of three years from 25th May instant, at the yearly rent of 847., payable by four equal quarterly instalments, on" &c. "And it is hereby mutually agreed that in such lease shall be contained covenants on the lessee's part as follows" (The covenants were here set out.) "And the said G. Anderson doth hereby" "agree with the said H. Marsden" "that the said G. Anderson will accept such lease on the terms and conditions aforesaid, and pay one moiety of the charges thereof." "And the said H. Marsden" "agrees with the said G. Anderson" "that in such lease shall be contained a covenant for quiet enjoyment by the said G. Anderson during the said term. And it is hereby mutually agreed that these presents shall operate as an agreement only; and that, until a lease shall be executed, the rent, covenants and agreements agreed to be therein reserved and contained shall be paid and observed, and the several rights and remedies shall be enforced, in the same manner as if the same had been actually executed." The plaintiff was then let into possession of the house and premises, and continued to reside there till after the first quarter's rent became due according to the terms of the agreement. Application was made for the amount due, but he refused to pay, alleging that certain repairs had not been completed according to Mrs. Marsden's promise. On 23rd September, 1859, he removed all the effects which he had in the house to the Defford Station, on the defendants' railway, where they were soon afterwards seized by Mrs. Marsden, to whom the defendants gave them up. It was clearly made out that the goods had been fraudulently and clandestinely removed by the plaintiff; and the jury, under the direction of the learned Judge, returned a verdict for the defendants, leave being reserved to the plaintiff to move to enter the verdict for him. Pigott Serjt. had obtained a rule, calling upon the 1861. ANDERSON V. MIDLAND Railway Company. |