Blundell Leigh v. Attenborough
Table of Contents
Introduction
The landmark judgement of Blundell Leigh v. Attenborough is widely referred to understand that the delivery of goods does not have to be contemporaneous which means that the contract for pledge and delivery do not have to be done at the same time. The delivery of goods can be made before the advance, which in turn constitutes a pledge as soon as the advance is made.
Citation: (1921) 3 K. B. 235
Facts
The plaintiff however died due to which the legal legatees paid the amount she borrowed and sued the defendant for the return of the jewellery. The dispute of the plaintiff was she gave the jewellery to Miller for the offer deal thus she had become the gratuitous bailee not entitled to deal with it thus no valid pledge was formed.
On November 1, 1919, the plaintiff handed over her jewellery to Miller to value it and offer her a price he could lend to her in return for the jewellery kept with him as an advance. The Miller pledged the jewellery to the defendant for a certain amount of money and handed some part of it to the plaintiffs as the security of the jewellery.
Issues:
- Whether there was a contract of pledge between the plaintiff and the miller?
- Was the plaintiff right in suing the defendant for return of goods?
Held
The honourable Court held that it was clear that when the plaintiff handed the goods to Miller with an intention to create a valid pledge between them from the moment when Miller handed over her money for the purpose of loan which she was prepared to accept. Thus the Court declared that the pledge between the plaintiff and Miller was a valid pledge.
