For transactions within the Pawnbrokers' Act, 1872, the remedy is by proceedings in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction (a).

When the pawn has been stolen, or otherwise unlawfully obtained, the owner may in some cases avail himself of the remedy by Order of Restitution.

For criminal offences, the remedy is by information or Indictment.

Proceedings to enforce the obligations of the contract of pawn, whether by recovering debts thereby incurred, or damages for breach of the obligations of that contract, or to enforce specific delivery of the pawn, may be taken in the High Court of Justice, subject to the limitations imposed by the County Courts Act, 1867 (b), which have been expressly preserved by the Judicature Acts (c), on the plaintiff's right to recover costs if the action might properly have been brought in a County or other inferior Court, which right is also subject, on good cause shown, to the exercise of the Judge's discretion as to costs (d). If the Judge be satisfied that such cause exists, a plaintiff may not only fail to recover costs, but may be ordered to pay the costs of the defendant (e)

Subject to somewhat similar restrictions as to costs, the plantiff may sue in the Mayor's Court, London; the Passage Court, Liverpool; the Tolzie Court, Bristol; and other

(a) 35 & 36 Vict., cap. 93, secs. 45, 56.

(b) 30 & 31 Vict., cap. 142, secs. 5, 7, 8 & 10.

(c) 36 & 37 Vict., cap. 66, sec. 67.

(d) Order LV., rule 1. Garnet v. Bradley, L.R. 3 A.C. 944, 48 L.J. 186 Ex., 39 L.T. N.S. 261, 26 W.R. 698, reversing C.A. L.R. 2 Ex. D. 349, 46 L.J. 545 Ex., 36 L.T. N.S. 725, 25 W.R. 653.

(e) Collins v. Welch, L.R. 5 C.P.D. 27, 49 L.J. 260 C.P.D., 41 L.T. N.S. 785, 28 W.R. 208 (in C.A.). Harris v. Petherick (in C.A.), L.R. 4 Q.B.D. 611, 48 L.J. 521 Q.B.D., 41 L.T. N.S. 146.

Inferior Courts of Record, which are now empowered (a) to give the same relief as the High Court of Justice in all cases within the limits of their jurisdiction (b).

County Courts, and the City of London Court (c), have jurisdiction in all cases where the debt or damage claimed does not exceed £50 (d).

An intending pawnor, with whom another person has made a binding contract to advance money on a pledge, may maintain an action for damages for breach of that contract, or if damages would be an inadequate remedy, for the specific performance of the contract (e). He may also elect to rescind an uncompleted contract, or to stop goods in transitu, on the actual or apprehended insolvency of the other party, unless the contract has been so acted upon that rescission or stoppage would prejudice a subsequent purchaser or pawnee without notice and for valuable consideration. Thus, goods to arrive ex ship, may be stopped at any time before delivery to the purchaser, his ship, carrier, [pawnee] or other bailee (ƒ), unless the bill of lading (g), delivery order, or other instrument, sufficient to pass. the right to the property (h), for the retention [or transfer] of the bill of lading [or similar instrument] is the retention [or transfer] of the jus disponendi (i), provided the

(a) 36 & 37 Vict., cap. 66, secs. 89, 90.
(b) 13 & 14 Vict., cap 61, sec. 1.

(c) 15 Vict., cap. lxxvii. (d) 30 & 31 Vict., cap. 142, sec. 35. (e) Davis v. Flagstaff Mining Coy. (in C.A.), L.R. 3 C.P.D. 228, 47 L.J. 503 C.P., 38 L.T. N.S. 769, 26 W.R. 431; Hawes v. Paveley, L.R. 1 C.P.D. 418, 46 L.J. 18 C.P., 34 L.T. N.S. 835, 24 W.R. 895. (f) Alliance Bank. Brown, 34 L.J. 256 Ch.; Ranken v. Alfaro, L.R. 5 Ch. D. 786, 46 L.J. 832 Ch., 36 L.T. N.S. 529 (in C.A.). (9) Merchant Banking Coy. of London v. Phanix Bessemer Steel Coy., L.R. 5 Ch. D. 205, 46 L.J. 418 Ch. D., 36 L.T. N.S. 395, 25 W.R. 457 exp. Gibbes, re Whitworth, L.R. 1 Ch. D. 101, 45 L.J. 10 Bk, 24 W.R. 298. (h) Leask v. Scott, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 376, 46 L.J. 576 Q.B.D., 36 L.T. N.S. 784, 25 W.R. 654 (in C.A.).

(i) Imperial Bank v. London and St. Katharine Dock Coy., L.R. 5 Ch. D. 195, 46 L.J. 335 Ch. D., 36 L.T. N.S. 233.

goods have been specifically appropriated (a), or the transfer has taken place for a new consideration, given or contracted to be given when the transfer takes place. A mere release of an antecedent claim will not be sufficient for this purpose (b). The transitus is not determined when goods have been rejected by the consignee and returned to the carrier (c). When an insolvent vendee has so resold or pledged goods consigned to him as to defeat the vendor's right to stop in transitu, the latter may still, by notice, intercept the sub-purchaser's unpaid purchase money (d), for the rule of the High Court is to give effect to the equitable right to stop, so far as is consistent with the rights of third parties (e). On the same principle, and with the same qualifications, an unpaid pawnor who has contracted to deliver, or has forwarded goods to the pawnee, may stop in transitu, or intercept the surplus produce of a sub-pledge (ƒ).

As already stated, the pawnor retains the general ownership of the pawn, subject only to the special property which the Pawnee acquires therein by virtue of his contract (g). He may therefore reclaim the thing bailed, by payment or tender of the debt the pawn was deposited to secure. So soon as he has done this, the pawn is reduced instantaneously into his possession, and he may at once sue the pawnee for converting or wrongfully detaining it (h), unless

(a) Barber v. Meyerstein, L.R. 4 H.L. 317, 39 L.J. 187, 22 L.T. N.S. 808, 18 W.R. 1041 (in H.L.) ; Ogg v. Shuter, L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 47, 45 L.J. 45 C.P., 33 L.T. N.S. 492, 24 W.R. 100 (in C.A.).

(b) Farmiloe v. Bain, L.R. 1 C.P.D. 445, 45 L.J. 264 C.P., 34 L.T. N.S. 324. Mirabita v. Imperial Ottoman Bank, L.R. 3 Ex. D. 164, 47 L.J. 418 Ex., 38 L.T. N.S. 597.

(c) Rodger v. Comptoir Escompte de Paris, L.R. 2 P.C. 393. (d) Bolton v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Coy., L.R. 1 C.P. 431. (e) Exp. Falk, re Kiell, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 447, 42 L.T. N.S. 780, 28 W.R. 785. (f) Exp. Golding, Davis & Co., re Knight, L.R. 13 C. D. 628, 28 W.R. 481 exp. Alston, re Holland, L.R. 4 C.A. 168, 19 L.T. N.S. 544, 17 W.R. 266. (g) See ante, Cap. VI., ON THE PAWNOR, HIS TITLE AND PROPERTY. (h) Ratcliff v. Davis, Cro. Jac. 245, Yelv. 178.

the pawnee can show that his omission to re-deliver has been occasioned by natural decay (a), or by some casualty for which he was not responsible (b); or unless he gives only a qualified refusal to re-deliver the pawn, from bona fide doubt as to the applicant's title, and in order to remove his doubts by inquiry within a reasonable time (c).

The pawnor's possessory title will, in like manner, be re-vested in him if the pawnee does any active wrong to the pawn, as by selling, or otherwise parting with (d), misusing, or destroying it (e), for such an act amounts to a determination of the bailment, as involving either a repudiation of the owner's right, or an exercise of dominion over the pawn, inconsistent therewith; for a person who, however innocently, obtains possession of another's goods, and disposes of them, whether for his own or a third person's benefit, will be liable for wrongful conversion thereof (ƒ).

If the pawn be injured or deteriorated in value while in the pawnee's keeping, and through his negligence, the pawnor's remedy is by action for damages for such injury or deterioration (g). But the burden of proof is on the pawnor (h), and the pawnee is not liable unless negligence

(a) Howell v. Coupland, L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 258, 46 L.J. 147 Q.B.D.. 33 L.T. N.S. 832, 24 W.R. 470 (in C.A.); Elphick v. Barnes, L.R. 5 C.P. 321, 49 L.J. 698 C.P., 29 W.R. 139.

(b) Ratcliff v. Davis, Cro. Jac. 244, Yelv. 178; Coggs v. Bernard, Ld. Raym. 909, 1 Smith's L.C., 7th edit., 188; Heald v. Carey, 11 C.B. 977, 21 L.J. 97 C.P.

(c) Vaughan v. Watt, 6 M & W. 472.

(d) Cooper v. Willomatt, 1 C.B. 672, 14 L.J. 219 C.P., Hartop v. Hoare,

2 Str. 1187.

(e) Per Blackburn, J., in Donald v. Suckling, 1 L.R. 585 Q.B., 35 L.J. 232 Q.B., 14 L.T. N.S. 772, 15 W.R. 13; Halliday v. Holgate (in Ex. Ch.), L.R. 3 Ex. 299, 37 L.J. 174 Ex., 17 W.R. 13.

(f) Hollins v. Fowler, L.R. 7 Q.B. 616, 41 L.J. 277 Q.B., 27 L.T. N.S. 168, 20 W.R. 868 (in Ex. Ch.), L.R. 7 H.L. 757, 44 L.J. 169 Q.B., 33 L.T. N.S.

Ex. 39 (in H.L.).

(g) Coggs v. Bernard, Ld. Raym. 909, 1 Smith's L.C. 7th edit. 188. (h) Ibid., Cooper v. Barton, 3 Camp. 5; Marsh v. Horne, 5 B. & C. 322; Doorman v. Jenkins, 2 Ad. & E. 256.

be established (a). As the pawnee impliedly contracts to keep the pawn with reasonable care, an action for negligently keeping it is founded, not on tort, but on contract. Therefore, a plaintiff who recovers less than £20 in such an action in the Superior Court, is not entitled to costs (b). Contra, when the pawnee misuses or wilfully injures it, delivers it to an adverse claimant, or otherwise repudiates the owner's right to it. The pawnor's remedy will then be founded on tort, and on recovering more than £10, he will usually be entitled to his costs (c).

If the pawnee wrongfully sell or otherwise profess to transfer the entire property in the pawn to a third person, the latter will acquire no better title thereto than the pawnee had. The transferee may retain it as a security for the sum due thereon, but if, on payment or tender thereof, he refuses delivery, the pawnor will have his remedy against pawnee or transferee respectively, for wrongful conversion or detention (d), and the transferee will have his remedy against the pawnee, because although, when selling an unredeemed chattel after the period of redemption has expired, the pawnee does not impliedly warrant the title thereto (e), he does undertake that the pledge is irredeemable (ƒ).

By virtue of his general ownership, the pawnor may sell the pawn while in the pawnee's possession. If he does so,

(a) Syred v. Carruthers, 1 E.B. & E. 469.

(b) Fleming v. Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Coy. (in (C.A.), L.R. 4 Q.B.D. 81, 39 L.T. N.S. 555, 27 W.R. 481.

(c) Pontifex v. Midland Railway Coy., L. R. 3 Q.B.D. 23, 47 L.J. 28 Q.B., 37 L.T. N.S. 403, 26 W.R. 209; Bryant v. Herbert (in C.A.), L.R. 3 C.P.D. 389, 47 L.J. 670 C.P., 39 L.T. N.S. 17, 26 W.R. 898.

(d) Ibid., Martini v. Coles, 1 M. & S. 140; Pigot v. Cubley, 15 C.B. N.S. 701, 33 L.J.134 C.P.; Johnson v. Stear, 15 C.B. N.S. 330,33 L.J. 130 C.P., 9 L.T. N.S. 538; Cole v. North Western Bank, L.R. 9 C.P. 470, 43 L.J. 194 C.P., 30 L.T. N.S. 684, 22 W.R. 861, and (in Ex. Ch.) L.R. 10 C.P. 354, 44 L.J. 233 C.P., 32 L.T. N.S. 733. (ƒ) Ibid.

() Morley v. Attenborough, 3 Ex. 500.