assignees of the estate and effects of Charles Taylor, a bankrupt. "I do hereby give you notice, severally, that I now have in my possession certain stereotype plates, the joint property of the above-named bankrupts; and certain others, the property of the said John Bumpus; which were respectively deposited with me some years ago, for the purpose of printing certain books therefrom for the said bankrupts; and which plates I hold until my accounts for such printing are paid or satisfied. And I do hereby further give you notice, that there is now due to me, in respect thereof, the sum of 420l. 10s. 6d.; and I therefore call upon you forthwith to pay the said sum of 4207. 10s. 6d., or sell the said plates, and pay me the proceeds thereof, in liquidation or part liquidation, as the case may be, of my said demand; and in the event of your declining to do so, within fourteen days from the date hereof, I do hereby further give you notice, that I shall thereafter proceed to sell the same plates by public auction, and apply the produce of such sale, after payment of all expenses, in discharge of the said sum of 4207. 10s. 6d., so due to me as aforesaid, if the same will so far extend; and, if more than sufficient, I shall pay you over the surplus." The demand made by the accountant of the assignees, on the 24th of November, 1827, was in writing, and in these words: "We, the undersigned H. T. C. and J. B., the assignees appointed under a commission of bankrupt against John Bumpus; and we, the undersigned B. H. and the said H. T. C., the assignees appointed under acommission of bankrupt against Charles Taylor, do hereby demand the delivery to us, or to our agent, Mr. Andrew Duncan, of &c., for that purpose authorized, certain stereotype plates in your possession, used for the printing of the following works (that is to say), Hume and Smollett's History of England, &c., the joint property of us, as such 1829. BLEADEN v. HANCOCK. 1829. BLEADEN v. HANCOCK. assignees as aforesaid; and we, the said H. T. C., and J. B., as such assignees of the said John Bumpus, do hereby also demand the delivery to us, or to the said Mr. A. D., &c. of the stereotype plates used for the printing of the following works [naming them], the property of us, the said H. T. C., and J. B., as such assignees of the said John Bumpus, as aforesaid. Dated this 23rd day of November, 1827. Taddy, Serjt., for the defendant, submitted, that, as to those plates, in which there was a joint property, the action was not maintainable. The demand is made by the assignees of Bumpus, and the assignees of Taylor, and the action is not maintainable, because the property is in an article not in itself divisible. There is a tenancy in common in certain persons, who make a joint demand. Their property is never severed. Parties may sever, and then maintain separate actions; as in the cases of Sedgworth v. Overend, 6 T. R. 766, and Addison v. Overend, 7 T. R. 279, in which cases the article was wholly destroyed. But here, instead of severing, they join, and make a joint demand, and they must bring a joint action, and not subject the party to two actions. They cannot, by a joint demand, support a separate action. TINDAL, C. J.-It appears to me to be the ordinary case. Two persons, interested in a chattel, bring separate actions for a tort. The damages may be severed. They are not so tied together by the joint demand, that they may not sever even when they come into Court. Taddy, Serjt., then objected, that, with respect to those plates, which had been sold, but were not mentioned in the written demand, there was no evidence of conversion by the defendant; as it had not been shewn either that he ordered the sale, or that he had received the proceeds of it; and, without shewing one of these things, though the assignees might have their action of trover against the auctioneer for selling, yet they could not maintain it against the defendant. TINDAL, C. J.-I think it is a question for the Jury, whether they will presume an authority from the defendant to the auctioneer, from the circumstance of his having declared an intention to detain the plates, and to sell them by auction, in order to satisfy his claim. It appeared, that the following certificate, indorsed on the printed catalogue, had been signed by the assignees, and sent to the Excise Office, to save the auction duty:"We do hereby certify, that Lots 1 to 1314, 1315 to 1323, 1326, 1330, 1341 to 1516, enumerated in this catalogue, and sold for 11867. 18s., were the property of John Bumpus, bankrupt, at the time the commission was issued against him, and that the same were sold for the benefit of his creditors. John Bleaden, and Henry Thomas Curtis, assignees." Taddy, Serjt., contended, that the assignees could not, after having done this act, say, that the sale took place without their assent. But, upon this point, TINDAL, C. J., said, that it was a question for the Jury, whether, under the act of Parliament, it was not proper for the assignees to certify, that it was a sale of the bankrupt's property, although it was not made for the general benefit, because the payment of the duty would be so much ultimately to be deducted from the amount of the bankrupt's estate. The substantial defence was a claim of lien upon the plates, for the amount of the bill for printing from them. To establish this, several witnesses were called on the part of the defendant. Some of them were copper-plate, 1829. BLEADEN V. HANCOCK. 1829. BLEADEN V. HANCOCK. and others stereotype, printers. They proved various instances, in both trades, in which the claim had been made and acquiesced in. But, for the plaintiffs, in reply, other persons in those trades were called, who stated other cases in which it had been successfully resisted. TINDAL, C. J., (in his summing up), said, upon the subject of the lien-This is not the case of a lien claimed by a person who has bestowed labour, or expended money upon an article, and who may detain it till he is paid. Every body knows, that, by the common law, a man may detain the commodity on which he has bestowed labour or money. But this is a claim of a larger lien, and those who seek to establish such a lien must shew a course of dealing so general and uniform, that persons must be supposed to form their contracts tacitly on the understanding that there is such an usage. And it is for you to say, whether, in this case, any such uniform usage has been proved to your satisfaction. You ought to be satisfied, that it is established affirmatively before you find in favour of it. The Jury found against the claim of lien, and gave their verdict generally for the plaintiffs for 6461. Wilde, and Jones, Serjts., and Chitty, for the plaintiffs. Taddy, Serjt., and Payne, for the defendant. [Attornies-J. & T. Davies, and Burn.] 1829. HUMPHREYS v. BRIANT. Dec. 4th. ASSUMPSIT for money had and received to the plain- A. having goods tiff's use. The plaintiff was the captain of a ship, called the Hope, and the defendant was a wharfinger, to whose wharf the cargo, consisting of bricks, &c., was sent by a person named Jameson. It appeared, that there was a difficulty about the payment of the balance of the freight, part having been paid by Mr. Jameson; and, on the 9th of October, 1828, a conversation took place between Jameson, the defendant, and the plaintiff's attorney, about the amount of the freight. The defendant produced a written authority, which Mr. Jameson had given him that morning, and asked the plaintiff's attorney if he would agree to the arrangement mentioned in it. The plaintiff's attorney did agree to it; and afterwards urged the defendant several times to sell the bricks, pursuant to the authority; and he subsequently admitted to him, that he had sold them, and received the proceeds of the sale. The authority (which was not stamped) was in these words: "I hereby authorize Mr. J. W. Briant to sell the bricks or tiles, landed out of the Hope, and thereout of the proceeds to pay Captain Robert Humphreys the remainder of his freight, 247. 7s. 6d. "Wm. Jameson. at the wharf of B., which C. had conveyed there by ship, gave B. a paper, by rized him to sell which he autho "9th October, 1828." Spankie, Serjt., for the defendant, submitted-First, that the paper, though in form an authority to sell, was, in effect and substance, an order for the payment of money, and, therefore, required a stamp: and, Secondly, that if it could be read without a stamp, the plaintiff could not |