Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/784

 —



Bailment.

562 Sect.

.

The

4.

Hire of

Work and

lien is lost

workman

the

of

waiver

by a relinquishment of possession on the part or by any act or agreement amounting to

(z),

(a).

Labour. Pledge.

Sect.

5.—Pledge.

1138. The remaining class of bailment for valuable consideration pledge {pignus), whereby a chattel is delivered to a bailee to be held by him as security for money advanced to the bailor (6). The subject of pledge will be separately treated at length in another part of this work (c). is

Part

IV.

— Considerations Classes Sect.

Estoppel of bailee.

demand

to All

Bailment.

of

Estoppel of Bailee.

1.

1139. As a rule a bailee bailor's

Common

is

estopped from setting up against his

for a redelivery of the chattel bailed the right or

a third person to the property in it (d) this estoppel ceases when the bailment on which it is founded is determined by what is equivalent to an eviction by title paramount (e) and the bailee is thereby discharged from all liability to the bailor (/), unless there be a special contract, or the But it is not bailee be in some way to blame for the eviction (g). enough that the bailee has become aware of the title of a third person, or that an adverse claim has been made upon him(/i). Unless he has been actually evicted he can only set up the title of a third person where he does so on behalf and on the express authority of such third person {i). Interrogatories may not be administered by a bailee to his bailor for the purpose of showing that the latter has parted with his title in the chattel to a third person, unless the bailee justifies his detention of it by setting up the title of such third person with his

title of Justertii.

But



consent

(k).

Hartley v. Hitchcock (1816), 1 Stark. Jacobs V. Latour (1828), 5 Bing. 130 Legg v. Evans (1840), 6 M. & W. 36, per Parke, B., at p. 42. {a) White v. Gainer (1824), 2 Bing. 23. h) Goggs v. Bernard (1703), 2 Ld. Raym. 909, per Lord Holt, C.J., at p. 913 Jones on Bailments, 4th ed. p. 36 Story on Bailments, s. 286. {z)

408







See title Pawnbrokers and Pledges. Betteley v. Reed (1843), 4 Q. B. 511 (d) Biddle v. Bond (1865), 6 B. & S. 225 Ex parte Davies, Re Sadler (1881), 19 Gh. D. 86 Leese v. Martin (1873), L. R. 17 Eq. 224. {e) Biddle v. Bond, supra, per Blackburn, J., at p. 234. (/) Ross V. Edwards d; Go. (1895), 73 L. T. 100, per Lord Macnaghten, at (c)







p. 101. (g) (h)

Ross V. Edwards & Go., supra. Betteley v. Reed, supra, per Lord

Denman,

C.J., at p.

517



Leese v. Martin,

supra. (i)

c& Go. v. Lambert cfc Go., [1891] 1 Q. B. 318, per Lord Esher, M.R., See also Thorne v. Tilbury (1858), 3 H. & N. 534. Rogers <& Go. v. Lambert cfc Go., supra.

Rogers

at p. 325. {k)