The following excerpt is from Yule & Co. (Hong Kong) v. Singh, Sehra and Jay's Video Connection, 1985 CanLII 1439 (AB QB):
In John v. Jenkins (1832), 1 C & M 227; 149 E.R. 385, a tenant had brought action against a landlord for illegal distress and replevin. The seizure had been made off of the leased premises. It was admitted by the counsel for the tenant that the tenant had removed the goods to avoid a distress by the landlord. He alleged the tenant had been of the opinion that the landlord was not entitled to make a valid seizure. It is not clear from the case report whether the tenant informed the landlord before he removed the goods. The case was sent to a jury which decided that the removal by the tenant was not fraudulent because the tenant did not have fraudulent intent.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.