MS ACTION BY REVERSIONER FOR TRESPASS. 



pursuit, aud entered to retake the goods, is a good plea aud a 

 good justification of the entry on the plaintilf's close {Patrick v. 

 CoJericTc). 



A rerersionor cannot maintain an action against a stranger for cuts of 

 trespass on the land unattended, with any other injury to the reversion 

 than as being committed in assertion of the claim of a right of way 

 {Baxter \. Taylor). And per FarJce J . : "No injury has been done to 

 the reversion. My notion is that there must be some destruction of 

 the land to enable the reversioner to maintain this action. No case 

 has ever gone so far as to constitute a simple trespass like this an 

 injury to the reversion. The case of Young v. Sj^encer is distinguish- 

 able from the present. The words of Lord Tenterden C.J, in that case 

 are to be considered with reference to the subject-matter of decision ; 

 and he is there stating what in his opinion are acts of wast/?." {il).) 



An auctioneer put into possession of fixtures {spouting) attached to tlie 

 freehold, for tlie purpose of setting them, fJie purcliaser being hound to 

 detach and remove them, has not such a possession as will support tres- 

 pass de bonis asportatis for their wrongful removal {Davis v. Banks). 

 And per Parke B. : " There is no doubt as to the law, that an 

 auctioneer has a special property as bailee in goods and chattels which 

 are put into his possession for the purpose of sale, whether such goods 

 and chattels be in his own rooms or in the house of another person. 

 The case of Witti((ms v. Mitlington is a decision to that effect. On the 

 ground that he is a bailee, he may maintain trespass de bonis asjwrtatis, 

 or trover, for such chattels. But is he bailee of the roof of the house 

 which is part of the freehold ? He cannot be considered to have such 

 a possession of the house and fixtures as would entitle him to maintain 

 an action of trespass quare clausum f regit against a party, for an injury 

 to them ; and that is conceded to be so by the plaintiff's counsel. He 

 was only authorized at the time of his employment to sell the right of 

 detaching and removing the fixtures, and he had no possession of them 

 as materials, and he was not in possession of the freehold. But it was 

 said that on their severance they were bailed to him. That depends 

 upon the ciuestion, whether or not the real owner of the fixtures ever 

 intended that the plaintiff' should have possession of them after they 

 were detached. The evidence is that the lots were to be sold as 

 fixtures, which the purchaser was to detach and remove. The evi- 

 dence, therefore, is opposed to the plaintiff's view of the question. 

 The present action, therefore, bo far as it respects those fixtures, is no 

 more maintainable than an action of quare clausum f regit would be, if 

 brought for the removal of growing crops by an auctioneer who has been 

 directed to sell them." 



