there has been a sub-pledge; at least the plaintiff should try the experiment whether, on bringing the money for which he pledged those debentures to Simpson, he cannot get them. And the assignment of the pawn for the purpose of raising money (so long at least as it purports to transfer no more than the pledgee's interest against the pledgor) is so far from being found in practice to be inconsistent with, or repugnant to, the contract, that it has been introduced into the Factors Acts, and is in the civil law (and according to Mores v. Conham, Owen, 123, in our own law also) a regular incident in a pledge. If it is done too soon, or to too great an extent, it is doubtless unlawful, but not so repugnant to the contract as to be justly held equivalent to a renunciation of it. The cases of Bloxam v. Sanders, 4 B. & C. 941, and Milgate v. Kebble, 3 M. & G. 100, are cases of unpaid vendors, and therefore are not authorities directly applicable to a case of pledge. But the position of a partially unpaid vendor, who irregularly sells the goods which have only been partially paid for, is very analogous to that of a pledgee; and in Milgate v. Kebble, Id. 103, Tindal, C. J., is reported to have used language that seems to indicate that in his opinion a pledgor could not have maintained trover any more than the vendee in that case. But the latest case, and one which I think is binding on this court, is that of Johnson v. Stear, 15 C. B. N. S. 330; 33 L. J. C. P. 130; and I think that the decision of the majority of the Court of Common Pleas in that case is an authority that at all events there remains in the pawnee an interest not put an end to by the unauthorized transfer, such as is inconsistent with a right in the pawnor to recover in detinue. In that case the goods had been pledged as a security for a bill of exchange, with a power of sale if the bill was not paid at maturity. The pledgee sold the goods the day before he had a right to do so. The assignees of the bankrupt pledgor brought trover, and sought to recover the full value of the goods without any reduction. Williams, J., thought that they were so entitled, giving as his reason" that the bailment having been terminated by the wrongful sale, the plaintiff might have resumed possession of the goods freed from the bailment, and might have held them rightfully when so resumed, as the absolute owner against all the world." 15 C. B. N. S. 341; 33 L. J. C. P. 134. And if this was correct, the present plaintiff is entitled to judgment. the court decided that "the deposit of the goods in question with the defendant, to secure repayment of a loan to him on a given day, with power to sell in case of default on that day, created an interest and a right of property in the goods which was more than a mere lien; and the wrongful act of the pawnee did not annihilate the contract between the parties, nor the interest of the pawnee in the goods under that contract." 15 C. B. N. S. 334, 335; 33 L. J. C. P. 131. This can be reconciled with the cases above cited, of which Fenn v. Bittleston, 7 Ex. 152; 21 L. J. Ex. 41, is one, by the distinction that the sale, though wrongful, was not so inconsistent with the object of the contract of But the majority of pledge as to amount to a repudiation of it, though I own that I do not find this distinction in the judgment of Johnson v. Stear, 15 C. B. N. S. 330; 33 L. J. C. P. 130. It may be that the conclusion from these premises ought to have been that the defendant was entitled to the verdict, on the plea of not possessed in trover, unless the court thought fit to let the plaintiff, on proper terms, amend by substituting a count for the improper sale; but this point as to the pleading does not seem to have been presented to the Court of Common Pleas. The fact that they differed from Williams, J., shows that after consideration they meant to decide that the pledge gave a special property, which still continued; and though I have the highest respect for the authority of Williams, J., I think we must, in a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, act upon the opinion of the majority, even if I did not think, as I do, that it puts the law on a just and convenient ground. And as already intimated, I think that unless the plaintiff is entitled to the uncontrolled possession of the things, he cannot recover in detinue. For these reasons, I think we should give judgment for the defendant. MELLOR, J., read the judgment of — COCKBURN, C. J. The question in this case is, whether, when debentures have been deposited as security for the payment of a bill of exchange, with a right on the part of the depositee to sell or otherwise dispose of the debentures in the event of nonpayment of the bill, — in other words, as a pledge, and the pawnee pledges the securities to a third party on an advance of money, the original pawnor, the bill of exchange remaining unpaid, can treat the contract between himself and the first pawnee as at an end, and, without either paying or tendering the amount of the bill of exchange for the payment of which the security had been pledged, bring an action of detinue to recover the thing pledged from the holder to whom it has been transferred. I think it unnecessary to the decision in the present case to determine whether a party, with whom an article has been pledged as a security for the payment of money, has a right to transfer his interest in the thing pledged (subject to the right of redemption in the pawnor) to a third party. I should certainly hesitate to lay down the affirmative of that proposition. Such a right in the pawnee seems quite inconsistent with the undoubted right of the pledgor to have the thing pledged returned to him immediately on the tender of the amount for which the pledge was given. In some instances it may be well inferred from the nature of the thing pledged as in the case of a valuable work of art that the pawnor, though perfectly willing that the article should be intrusted to the custody of the pawnee, would not have parted with it on the terms that it should be passed on to others and committed to the custody of strangers. It is not, however, necessary to decide this question in the present case. The question here is, whether the transfer of the pledge is not only a breach of the contract on the part of the pawnee, but operates to put an end to the contract altogether, so as to entitle the pawnor to have back the thing pledged without payment of the debt. I am of opinion that the transfer of the pledge does not put an end to the contract, but amounts only to a breach of contract, upon which the owner may bring an action, for nominal damages if he has sustained no substantial damage; for substantial damages, if the thing pledged is damaged in the hands of the third party, or the owner is prejudiced by delay in not having the thing delivered to him on tendering the amount for which it was pledged. We are not dealing with a case of lien, which is merely the right to retain possession of the chattel, and which right is immediately lost on the possession being parted with, unless to a person who may be considered as the agent of the party having the lien for the purpose of its custody. In the contract of pledge the pawnor invests the pawnee with much more than the mere right of possession. He invests him with a right to deal with the thing pledged as his own, if the debt be not paid and the thing redeemed at the appointed time. It seems to me that the contract continues in force, and with it the special property created by it, until the thing pledged is redeemed or sold at the time specified. The pawnor cannot treat the contract as at an end until he has done that which alone enables him to divest the pawnee of the inchoate right of property in the thing pledged, which the contract has conferred on him. The view which I have taken of this case, and which I should have arrived at independently of authority, is fully borne out by the decision of the majority of the Court of Common Pleas in the case of Johnson v. Stear. There, goods which had been pledged as security for the payment of a bill of exchange, having been sold before the falling due of the bill, the court held on an action of trover being brought to recover the goods — that, although the owner was entitled to maintain an action against the pawnee for a breach of contract in parting with the goods, yet that the contract itself was not put an end to by the tortious dealing with the goods by the pawnee so as to entitle the owner to bring an action to recover the goods as if the contract never had existed. This decision appears to me to be a direct authority on the present case, and to be binding upon us. It is true that Mr. Justice Williams dissented from the other three judges constituting the court, holding that the contract was put an end to, and the plaintiff remitted to his absolute right of ownership by the conversion of the goods by the pawnee. But, however I may regret to differ from that very learned judge, I concur, for the reasons I have given, with the majority of the Court of Common Pleas in holding that a pawnor cannot recover back goods (and the same principle obviously would apply to debentures) pledged as security for the payment of a debt or bill of exchange until he has paid or tendered the amount of the debt. I am therefore of opinion that our judgment should be in favor of the defendant. Judgment for the defendant. Keighley and Gething, for the plaintiff. pledge as to amount to a repudiation of it, though I own that I do not find this distinction in the judgment of Johnson v. Stear, 15 C. B. N. S. 330; 33 L. J. C. P. 130. It may be that the conclusion from these premises ought to have been that the defendant was entitled to the verdict, on the plea of not possessed in trover, unless the court thought fit to let the plaintiff, on proper terms, amend by substituting a count for the improper sale; but this point as to the pleading does not seem to have been presented to the Court of Common Pleas. The fact that they differed from Williams, J., shows that after consideration they meant to decide that the pledge gave a special property, which still continued; and though I have the highest respect for the authority of Williams, J., I think we must, in a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, act upon the opinion of the majority, even if I did not think, as I do, that it puts the law on a just and convenient ground. And as already intimated, I think that unless the plaintiff is entitled to the uncontrolled possession of the things, he cannot recover in detinue. For these reasons, I think we should give judgment for the defendant. MELLOR, J., read the judgment of COCKBURN, C. J. The question in this case is, whether, when debentures have been deposited as security for the payment of a bill of exchange, with a right on the part of the depositee to sell or otherwise dispose of the debentures in the event of nonpayment of the bill, — in other words, as a pledge, — and the pawnee pledges the securities to a third party on an advance of money, the original pawnor, the bill of exchange remaining unpaid, can treat the contract between himself and the first pawnee as at an end, and, without either paying or tendering the amount of the bill of exchange for the payment of which the security had been pledged, bring an action of detinue to recover the thing pledged from the holder to whom it has been transferred. I think it unnecessary to the decision in the present case to determine whether a party, with whom an article has been pledged as a security for the payment of money, has a right to transfer his interest in the thing pledged (subject to the right of redemption in the pawnor) to a third party. I should certainly hesitate to lay down the affirmative of that proposition. Such a right in the pawnee seems quite inconsistent with the undoubted right of the pledgor to have the thing pledged returned to him immediately on the tender of the amount for which the pledge was given. In some instances it may be well inferred from the nature of the thing pledged as in the case of a valuable work of art that the pawnor, though perfectly willing that the article should be intrusted to the custody of the pawnee, would not have parted with it on the terms that it should be passed on to others and committed to the custody of strangers. It is not, however, necessary to decide this question in the present case. The question here is, whether the transfer of the pledge is not only a breach of the contract on the part of the pawnee, but operates to put an end to the contract altogether, so as to entitle the pawnor to have back the thing pledged without payment of the debt. I am of opinion that the transfer of the pledge does not put an end to the contract, but amounts only to a breach of contract, upon which the owner may bring an action, for nominal damages if he has sustained no substantial damage; for substantial damages, if the thing pledged is damaged in the hands of the third party, or the owner is prejudiced by delay in not having the thing delivered to him on tendering the amount for which it was pledged. We are not dealing with a case of lien, which is merely the right to retain possession of the chattel, and which right is immediately lost on the possession being parted with, unless to a person who may be considered as the agent of the party having the lien for the purpose of its custody. In the contract of pledge the pawnor invests the pawnee with much more than the mere right of possession. He invests him with a right to deal with the thing pledged as his own, if the debt be not paid and the thing redeemed at the appointed time. It seems to me that the contract continues in force, and with it the special property created by it, until the thing pledged is redeemed or sold at the time specified. The pawnor cannot treat the contract as at an end until he has done that which alone enables him to divest the pawnee of the inchoate right of property in the thing pledged, which the contract has conferred on him. The view which I have taken of this case, and which I should have arrived at independently of authority, is fully borne out by the decision of the majority of the Court of Common Pleas in the case of Johnson v. Stear. There, goods which had been pledged as security for the payment of a bill of exchange, having been sold before the falling due of the bill, the court held on an action of trover being brought to recover the goods that, although the owner was entitled to maintain an action against the pawnee for a breach of contract in parting with the goods, yet that the contract itself was not put an end to by the tortious dealing with the goods by the pawnee so as to entitle the owner to bring an action to recover the goods as if the contract never had existed. This decision appears to me to be a direct authority on the present case, and to be binding upon us. It is true that Mr. Justice Williams dissented from the other three judges constituting the court, holding that the contract was put an end to, and the plaintiff remitted to his absolute right of ownership by the conversion of the goods by the pawnee. But, however I may regret to differ from that very learned judge, I concur, for the reasons I have given, with the majority of the Court of Common Pleas in holding that a pawnor cannot recover back goods (and the same principle obviously would apply to debentures) pledged as security for the payment of a debt or bill of exchange until he has paid or tendered the amount of the debt. I am therefore of opinion that our judgment should be in favor of the defendant. Judgment for the defendant. Keighley and Gething, for the plaintiff. |