possession of it as apparent owner, but who, as the plaintiff alleged, had no property in it, having been left in charge of it merely as his agent during his absence abroad. The bill represented that the furniture was still in the hands of Elizabeth Wright, and that Rowcliffe had advertised it for sale. His answer, however, stated, and it was proved, that he had taken possession of it soon after the execution of the bill of sale, and that he had ever since retained such possession by keeping a man in the house where it was, although Elizabeth Wright, who resided there, was allowed the use of it.

Elizabeth Wright, by her answer, disclaimed all interest in the furniture.

At the hearing of the cause before Vice-Chancellor Wigram, by whom an injunction had been previously granted, a decree was made, by which it was ordered, among other things, that the bill should be retained, with liberty to the plaintiff to bring an action of trover for the furniture, and the defendant was, on the trial, to admit conversion.

On the hearing of an appeal by Rowcliffe from that decree, the following two points, amongst others, were made by the counsel for the appellant: First, that the plaintiff's remedy was at law, and that a bill in equity did not lie to restrain the sale of specific chattels, unless they possessed some peculiar value which could not be compensated by damages, as in the case of the Pusey horn. 1 Vern. 273. Secondly, that admitting such a bill would have lain had the goods been still in the possession of Elizabeth Wright as the plaintiff's agent for their custody, yet at all events the equity was gone as soon as they had changed hands and passed into the possession of a stranger. And in support of this they referred to the doubt expressed by the Vice-Chancellor himself in overruling a demurrer to this very bill, as to whether his decision would have been the same if the bill had alleged that the goods were in the hands of Rowcliffe.

In reference to these points,

The LORD CHANCELLOR said: The cases which have been referred to are not the only class of cases in which this court will entertain a suit for delivery up of specific chattels; for where a fiduciary relation subsists between the parties, whether it be the case of an agent or a trustee or a broker, or whether the subject-matter be stock or cargoes or chattels of whatever description, the court will interfere to prevent a sale either by the party intrusted with the goods, or by a person claiming under him, through an alleged abuse of power. In this case there is great reason to believe that Elizabeth Wright never had any right to the goods except as the plaintiff's agent, for she has disclaimed all interest in them by her answer, and there is nothing to show how she had acquired any property in them. But, says Rowcliffe, I purchased under circumstances which give me a legal right to the goods. If that be so, the equity of the plaintiff will be intercepted by a prior legal right. In such a case this court begins by putting the matter into a course of investigation to ascertain that legal right. That is what the Vice-Chan

The

2

who

-.on.

nolice If Cookson did not have had oblained the altar fro. D any no nd man had a good willer. Equity world men had a good not lie against Cook however he bought it for a dif he would not have good lille. Good & Rowcliffe

Profuly

covere це

larke were

that has been costiere.

breach of trust can

The only way that you are

sure

filling the rising ilay is dy

Bill and Equity.

For Sheriff annot break at louse on wen a writ of reflevins.

cellor has done. And in that respect I see no ground for impeaching the decree.

[His Lordship then proceeded to comment on some subordinate parts of the case, in the course of which he made the following observation]: I observe the decree gives the plaintiff liberty to bring an action, but gives no directions as to what is to be done if he does not proceed; whereas it ought to have directed that if he did not proceed within a certain time, the bill should be dismissed.

Mr. Parker and Mr. H. Clarke were for the appellant.

Mr. Romilly and Mr. Southgate for the respondent.

CHAPTER II.

ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS NOT UNDER FORMER OWNER.

NOTE. — In this chapter are considered the cases in which the chattel in question either had no former owner, or in which, if it had a former owner, the present claimant does not derive his title from him.

SECTION I.

CHATTELS HAVING NO FORMER OWNER.

(Inst. II. 1, 12 & 13.)

12. WILD beasts, therefore, and birds and fishes, that is to say, all animals that live on the earth, in the sea or in the air, as soon as they are caught by any one, become his at once by virtue of the law of nations. For whatever has previously belonged to no one, is granted by natural reason to the first taker. Nor does it matter whether a man catches the wild beasts or birds on his own ground, or on another's; although a person purposing to enter on another's land for the purpose of hunting or fowling may of course be prohibited from entering by the owner, if he perceive him. Whatever, then, you have caught of this kind, is regarded as yours so long as it is kept in your custody; but when it has escaped from your custody and reverted to its natural freedom, it ceases to be yours, and again belongs to the first taker. And it is considered to have recovered its natural freedom when it has either escaped out of your sight, or is still in sight, but so situated that its pursuit is difficult.

13. It has been debated whether a wild beast is to be considered yours at once, if wounded in such manner as to be capable of capture; and some have held that it is yours at once, and is to be regarded as yours so long as you are pursuing it, but that if you desist from pursuit, it ceases to be yours, and again belongs to the first taker. Others have thought that it is not yours until you have actually caught it. And we adopt the latter opinion, because many things may happen to prevent your catching it.