291< DAMAGES NOMINAL WHERE CROPS SOLD FOR FULL VALUE. 



Ill Proudlove v. TtmnJoiv, -where a landlord seized aud sold, under 

 distress for rent, growing crops, Avhieli were taken away by the pur- 

 chaser, and it appeared that the crops were sold for llie full value whkh 

 thcij would Iiare fetched if sold at the proper lime, and the rent proved 

 to be due, exceeded the amount fur ^vhich the crops were sold, it was 

 held in an action of trover by the tenant that he was entitled to nomi- 

 nal damages only. Lord Lyndhursl C.B. said: "One asks naturally, 

 what is the damage the plaintiff has sustained? The party making the 

 distress is lawfully in possession, and has a right after a certain time 

 to convert the crops to his own use. He has done that immediately, 

 instead of waiting till the proper time. Then, is there any rule of posi- 

 tive law Avhich prevents his right to deduct the rent ? Before these 

 acts were passed, a party guilty of an irregularity in making a distress 

 became a trespasser ah inilio. So here, reasoning from that, the de- 

 fendant would have been a trespasser. Then came the 11 Geo. II. 

 c. 19, s. 19, Avhich says that the party shall not be deemed a trespasser 

 ab initio, but the party aggrieved shall recover full satisfaction for the 

 damage he has sustained by an action on the case." By the express 

 terms of this section the party injured by an unlawful act committed 

 after a lawful distress, is only to recover to the amount of the damage 

 he has actually sustained, and hence the measure of damages was the 

 difference between what the crops would have been sold for if the sale 

 had been regular, and what they actually sold for, which in this case 

 was proved to be more than their value (ib.). Where (joods distrained 

 for rent are sold tcilhoul an appraisement, the measure of damages is 

 the value of the goods minus the rent {Bigejins v. Goode). Growing 

 com sold under a fieri facias cannot be distrained for rent unless the 

 purchaf^er allow it to remain on the ground an unreasonable time after 

 it is rii)e {Peacock v. Purvis). Here a stranger became possessed of a 

 crop of growing corn by purchase, at a sale under a fi.fa., on which 

 the landlord was paid a year's rent. The latter, before the corn was 

 ripe, distrained it for rent due subsequently to the sale, and the distress 

 was held ill. 



Wharton v. Naylor decided that statute S Anne, c. 14, s. 1, malces it 

 v.nlauful to remove (joods taken in execution, wilhout paying one years 

 arrears of rent to the landlord; hut does not invalidale the execution itself. 

 Goods, therefore, so taken are in custodia legis, and cannot be distrained 

 on by the landlord for the year's rent ; and they are equally in custodia 

 legis, for this purpose, whether they are in the hands of the sheriff or 

 his vendee. The principal question here was whether the growing crop 

 BO seized by the sheriff aud sold to the plaintiffs could be distrained for 

 antecedent rent, of which the sheriff' and the plaintiff' had notice, and 



