502 NON-DELIVERY OF GOODS SOLD AT SHERIFF'S SALE. 



ment of the right, whatever it was, that the defendant had acquired by 

 his purchase at the sheriff's sale, and that had not failed. But qimre 

 whether the vendor of a personal chattel is bound to refund the price if 

 he has no title (/&.). 



The Hon-(Mivcnj of goods sold at a sheriff's sale was much considered 

 by the Court of Queen's Bench, in Wood v. Manleij, where the plaintiff's 

 landlord distrained on him for rent, and seized some hay which was 

 sold on the premises. The conditions of the sale, to which plaintiff was 

 a party, were that the purchasers might let the hay remain on the 

 premises till the next Lady-day, and come on the premises when they 

 liked to remove it. The defendant purchased some hay, and on January 

 2Gth the |>laintiff served a notice on him not to commit any trespass on 

 the plaintiff's premises; and in spite of a written demand, accompanied 

 with the threat of an action, refused to let him have it. Accordingly, 

 on :March 1st, the defendant broke open the gate and carried the hay 

 away. ErsJcme J. told the jury that if the plaintiflp assented to the con- 

 ditions of sale at the time of the sale, this araoiuited to a licence to enter 

 and take the goods, which licence was not revocable, and he therefore 

 directed them to find on this issue for the defendant, if they thought 

 the plaintiff had so assented. The Court refused a rule for a new trial. 

 They considered the licence so far executed as to be irrevocable equally 

 with that in 7\f)/Ier y. Waters. 



Trurer lies against a landlord who 'iiiaJres a second distress for the same 

 rent, n-hen he might hare tahen stif/icie/it at frst, or irhere having taken a 

 sufficient distress at first he roliintaritg abandons it {Daicson v. Cropp.) In 

 Lee v. CooU it was held by the Exchequer Chamber, affirming the judg- 

 ment of the Court of Exchequer, that if there is a fair opportunity, and 

 no legal cause ivhg a distrainer should not worJc out payment ly means of 

 a single distress, it is his duty so to worlc it out, and he cannot laufully 

 distrain again ; but if the purchaser of the goods distrained is prevented 

 from getting them by the wrongful act of the distrainee in converting 

 them to his own use, and has never had an opportunity of getting them, 

 a second distress is lawful. 



In this case the defendant {one of the General l)i-ainage Commis- 

 sioners) distrained a stack of the plaintiff's standing upon his land; 

 and whilst still standing there, it was knocked down to one Leverton at 

 an auction. It was a condition of the ready-money sale that purchasers 

 should remove lots at their own expense, take possession, and pay at 

 the fall of the hammer, or with the auctioneer's permission at the close 

 of the sale. After the sale the auctioneer left the stack for the purchaser 

 to take away; but he did not do so then. Upon his going to the 

 premises four days afterwards with his cart for ihat purpose, the plain- 



