Everet v Williams

Last updated

Everet v Williams
Asalto al coche.jpg
Asalto al coche by Goya
Full case nameJohn Everet v Joseph Williams
Decided1725
Citation(s)2 Pothier on Obligations 3
9 LQR 197

Everet v Williams [1725] (also known as the "Highwayman's Case") is an English court case dating back to 1725, regarding the enforceability of contracts to commit crimes. In this case, the contract was to share the spoils of armed robbery, which the court refused to uphold. [1] [2]

Contents

There are no contemporaneous reports of the case surviving, and most references to it relate to a summary of the case found in the 1893 Law Quarterly Review, which in turn relies upon a text from 1802, an English translation of a French work on the law of obligations by Robert Joseph Pothier. [3]

Facts

Everet and Williams were both highwaymen, and entered into a partnership to split the proceeds from their robberies. [1] For some time, the two engaged in this pursuit on Hounslow Heath, as well as at Bagshot, Salisbury, Hampstead, and elsewhere. [1] When the proceeds of these activities were sold, John Everet believed that Joseph Williams had maneuvered himself into receiving more than his fair share of the profits. [2] For some unknown reason, Everet decided to take his grievance to the courts for settlement. [2] He hired attorneys and counsel to sue Williams in court for the balance he thought due, pleading "for discovery, an account, and general relief" for the "profits" made under their "partnership". [2]

The plaintiff's pleadings referred to the nature of the partnership that it was "skilled in dealing in several sorts of commodities" and that they "proceeded jointly in the said dealings with good success on Hounslow Heath, where they dealt with a gentleman for a gold watch", adding that Hounslow Heath "was a good and convenient place to deal in, and that the said commodities were very plenty at Finchley aforesaid". [1]

The pleadings went on to state that the parties had "dealt with several gentlemen for divers watches, rings, swords, canes, hats, cloaks, horses, bridles, saddles, and other things to the value of £200 and upwards", and that these goods were obtained for "little or no money….after some small discourse with the said gentleman", adding that "the said things were dealt for 'at a very cheap rate.'" [1]

Judgment

On 30 October 1725 lawyers acting on behalf of John Everet presented a Bill in Equity at the Court of Exchequer, setting out the details of his claim. [2] Less than two weeks later, on 13 November 1725, the Court of Exchequer was less than impressed with the idea of being asked to settle a dispute amongst highwaymen regarding the division of the spoils and considered the Bill "both scandalous and impertinent". [1] Not only was the case dismissed, but a warrant was issued for the arrest of the two solicitors who brought the suit forth. Subsequently, both solicitors, William White and William Wreathock, were arrested and brought before the court and, on 6 December, both were fined £50 each. [1] Also on 6 December, the barrister who signed the original bill bringing the suit to court, Jonathan Collins, was ordered to pay all court costs. [1] [2]

Significance

Worse was in store for both Everet and Williams. Williams, the defendant, was arrested and executed by hanging in 1727 in Maidstone, while Everet, the plaintiff, was hanged 3 years later in Tyburn. [2] Finally, one of the solicitors involved in the action, Wreathock, was convicted of robbery in 1735 and sentenced to hang, but his sentence was commuted to transportation; he obtained a royal pardon, returned in England and resumed his practice until 1758, when he was struck off. [2] [4]

The general principle is still accepted throughout the western system as law, and despite the insufficient nature of the report, it is still regularly cited for its central proposition. In 2013 the case was cited in the UBS case which was brought before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the United States. [5] [6] Lord Sumption cited it in his judgment in his 2015 Supreme Court decision in Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) [7] and again in 2016 in his decision in Patel v Mirza . [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

Landmark court decisions, in present-day common law legal systems, establish precedents that determine a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially affect the interpretation of existing law. "Leading case" is commonly used in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions instead of "landmark case", as used in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Highwayman</span> Archaic term for a mounted robber who steals from travelers

A highwayman was a robber who stole from travellers. This type of thief usually travelled and robbed by horse as compared to a footpad who travelled and robbed on foot; mounted highwaymen were widely considered to be socially superior to footpads. Such criminals operated until the mid- or late 19th century. Highwaywomen, such as Katherine Ferrers, were said to also exist, often dressing as men, especially in fiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicature Acts</span> UK laws restructuring the English-Welsh court system (1873–1899)

In the history of the courts of England and Wales, the Judicature Acts were a series of Acts of Parliament, beginning in the 1870s, which aimed to fuse the hitherto split system of courts of England and Wales. The first two Acts were the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875, with a further series of amending acts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Courts of Scotland</span> Administration of justice in Scotland

The courts of Scotland are responsible for administration of justice in Scotland, under statutory, common law and equitable provisions within Scots law. The courts are presided over by the judiciary of Scotland, who are the various judicial office holders responsible for issuing judgments, ensuring fair trials, and deciding on sentencing. The Court of Session is the supreme civil court of Scotland, subject to appeals to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, and the High Court of Justiciary is the supreme criminal court, which is only subject to the authority of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on devolution issues and human rights compatibility issues.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jonathan Sumption, Lord Sumption</span> English lawyer and judge

Jonathan Philip Chadwick Sumption, Lord Sumption,, KC, is a British author, medieval historian and former senior judge who sat on the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom between 2012 and 2018.

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio is a legal doctrine which states that a plaintiff will be unable to pursue legal relief and damages if it arises in connection with their own tortious act. Particularly relevant in the law of contract, tort and trusts, ex turpi causa is also known as the illegality defence, since a defendant may plead that even though, for instance, he broke a contract, conducted himself negligently or broke an equitable duty, nevertheless a claimant by reason of his own illegality cannot sue. The UK Supreme Court provided a thorough reconsideration of the doctrine in 2016 in Patel v Mirza.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David Neuberger, Baron Neuberger of Abbotsbury</span> English judge (born 1948)

David Edmond Neuberger, Baron Neuberger of Abbotsbury is an English judge. He served as President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom from 2012 to 2017. He was a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary until the House of Lords' judicial functions were transferred to the new Supreme Court in 2009, at which point he became Master of the Rolls, the second most senior judge in England and Wales. Neuberger was appointed to the Supreme Court, as its President, in 2012. He now serves as a Non-Permanent Judge of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal and the Chair of the High-Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Finchley Common</span> Common land in Middlesex, north of London

Finchley Common was an area of land in Middlesex, north of London, and until 1816, the boundary between the parishes of Finchley, Friern Barnet and Hornsey.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Rann</span>

John "Jack" Rann was an English criminal and highwayman during the mid-18th century. He was a prominent and colourful local figure renowned for his wit and charm. He later came to be known as "Sixteen String Jack" for the 16 various coloured strings he wore on the knees of his silk breeches among other eccentric costumes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James MacLaine</span> British highwayman

"Captain" James Maclaine was an Irish man of a respectable presbyterian family who had a brief but notorious career as a mounted highwayman in London with his accomplice William Plunkett. He was known as "The Gentleman Highwayman" as a result of his courteous behaviour during his robberies, and obtained a certain kind of celebrity. Notoriously, he held up and robbed Horace Walpole at gunpoint: eventually he was hanged at Tyburn.

William Plunkett was a highwayman and accomplice of the famed "Gentleman Highwayman", James MacLaine.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Roger Toulson, Lord Toulson</span>

Roger Grenfell Toulson, Lord Toulson, PC was a British lawyer and judge who served as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

Illegality in English law is a potential ground in English contract law, tort, trusts or UK company law for a court to refuse to enforce an obligation. The illegality of a transaction, either because of public policy under the common law, or because of legislation, potentially means no action directly concerning the deal will be heard by the courts. The doctrine is reminiscent of the Latin phrase "Ex turpi causa non oritur actio", meaning "no cause of action arises from a wrong". The primary problem arising when courts refuse to enforce an agreement is the extent to which an innocent party may recover any property already conveyed through the transaction. Hence, illegality raises important questions for English unjust enrichment law.

<i>Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited</i> (in liquidation) 2015 decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited [2015] UKSC 23 is a UK company and insolvency law decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in relation to (i) the attribution of unlawful acts of a director to the company where the company is the victim of the unlawful act, and (ii) the extent to which liability for fraudulent trading under section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extraterritorial effect.

William Spiggot was a highwayman who was captured by Jonathan Wild's men in 1721. During his trial at the Old Bailey, he at first refused to plead and was therefore sentenced to be pressed until he pleaded. This was called Peine forte et dure. He was later executed, after a second trial when he pleaded not guilty, on 11 February 1721 at Tyburn, London.

<i>Patel v Mirza</i> 2016 English contract law case concerning illegality

Patel v Mirza[2016] UKSC 42 is an English contract law case concerning the scope of the illegality principle relating to insider trading under section 52 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. In 2020, the Supreme Court described this case as having set out a "a significant development in the law relating to illegality at common law".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tom Cox (highwayman)</span>

Thomas Cox, known as "The Handsome Highwayman", was an English highwayman, sentenced to death and hanged at Tyburn. He had a reputation for a spirited nature and it is reported that when asked if he wished to say a prayer before being hanged, he kicked the ordinary and the hangman out of the cart taking him there.

<i>Singularis Holdings Limited (in liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited</i> 2019 ruling by Supreme Court of the UK

Singularis Holdings Limited v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited[2019] UKSC 50 is a judicial decision of Supreme Court of the United Kingdom relating to the duties owed by a bank where a person acting on behalf of a corporate customer of the bank directs the bank to transfer money out of the company's account as part of a fraudulent scheme.

<i>Akers v Samba Financial Group</i>

Akers v Samba Financial Group[2017] UKSC 6, [2017] AC 424 is a judicial decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom relating to the conflict of laws, trust law and insolvency law.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 "The Highwayman's Case". Law Quarterly Review . 9: 197. 1893.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 "The Highwayman's Case: Formally Known as Everet v. Williams". Everything2.com.
  3. "A Treatise on the Law of Obligations or Contracts, Volume II". 1802. p. 3.
  4. "Stand and deliver, your money or your wife! Of Georgian highwaymen, modern sham marriages, illegal contracts, and abuse of the legal process – cearta.ie" . Retrieved 8 February 2021.
  5. Jerome F. Crotty (2013). "The 1725 Highwayman's Case: Not So Classy Tax Cheats Scolded by Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals" (PDF). Chicago: Rieck and Crotty, P.C. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 February 2014. Retrieved 25 January 2014.
  6. Thomas v. UBS AG, 706F.3d846 (7th Cir.2013).
  7. Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) [2015] UKSC 23 at paragraph [59].
  8. Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42 at paragraph [228].