Holiday v Sigil
Holiday v Sigil (1826) 2 C&P 176 is a case at common law concerning the recovery of a banknote.[1][2]
| Holiday v Sigil | |
|---|---|
| Court | Court of Chancery |
| Citation(s) | (1826) 2 C&P 176 |
| Keywords | |
| Receipt, ignorance | |
Facts
The defendant had a £500 note that had been dropped by the claimant. The claimant brought an action for money had and received. The trial was by jury.
Judgment
Abbott CJ gave the following directions to the jury.
The question to be considered is, whether you are satisfied that the plaintiff lost this note, and that the defendant found it; for if you are, the plaintiff is entitled to your verdict. I should observe, that it is scarcely possible for a plaintiff, when his property is stolen, or accidentally lost, to prove the loss by direct evidence; and, therefore, that must in almost all cases be made out by circumstances.
gollark: But `unsafePerformIO`.
gollark: Oh, and actually some of the rest of how variables work.
gollark: * perfect and without flaw, apart from the AWFUL const syntax
gollark: Just use Lua. Lua can be sandboxed fairly easily.
gollark: Simply don't have sandbox escapes.
See also
- English trusts law
Notes
- "Holiday v. Sigil" (PDF). Commonwealth Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2019-05-11.
- Cases and Materials on the Law of Restitution. Oxford University Press. 2007. ISBN 9780199296514.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.