the parts i don't understand are in red..
Jeffries v Great Western Ry. Co
Lord Campbell: "I am of the opinion that the law is that a person possessed of goods as his property has a good title as against every stranger, and that one who takes them from him, having no title in himself, is a wrongdoer, and cannot defend himself by shewing that there was title in some third person, for against a wrongdoer possession is title..."
---does this mean that the wrongdoer cannot defend himself by bringing a third party into the picture or something like that? what's "possession is title"?
The "Winkfield"
Collins M.R.: "Therefore it is not open to the defendant, being a wrongdoer, to inquire into the nature or limitation of the possessor's right, and unless it is competent for him to do so the question of his relation to, or liability towards, the true owner cannot come into the discussion at all, and, therefore, as between those two parties full damages have to be paid without any further inquiry. The extent of the liability of the finder to the true owner not being relevant to the discussion between him and the wrongdoer, the facts which would ascertain it would not have been admissible in evidence, and therefore the right of the finder to recover full damages cannot be made to depend upon the extent of his liability over to the true owner. To hold otherwise would, it seems to me, be in effect to permit a wrongdoer to set up a jus tertii under which he cannot claim. But if this be the fact in case of a finder, why should it not be equally the fact in the case of a bailee? Why, as against a wrongdoer, should the nature of the plaintiff's interest in the thing converted be any more relevant to the inquiry , and therefore admissible in evidence, than in the case of a finder?"
---1)why's it not open to the defendant to inquire into the nature etc.?
2) why can't the true owner come into the discussion at all?
3) and what does that whole big blob of red mean?
Jeffries v Great Western Ry. Co
Lord Campbell: "I am of the opinion that the law is that a person possessed of goods as his property has a good title as against every stranger, and that one who takes them from him, having no title in himself, is a wrongdoer, and cannot defend himself by shewing that there was title in some third person, for against a wrongdoer possession is title..."
---does this mean that the wrongdoer cannot defend himself by bringing a third party into the picture or something like that? what's "possession is title"?
The "Winkfield"
Collins M.R.: "Therefore it is not open to the defendant, being a wrongdoer, to inquire into the nature or limitation of the possessor's right, and unless it is competent for him to do so the question of his relation to, or liability towards, the true owner cannot come into the discussion at all, and, therefore, as between those two parties full damages have to be paid without any further inquiry. The extent of the liability of the finder to the true owner not being relevant to the discussion between him and the wrongdoer, the facts which would ascertain it would not have been admissible in evidence, and therefore the right of the finder to recover full damages cannot be made to depend upon the extent of his liability over to the true owner. To hold otherwise would, it seems to me, be in effect to permit a wrongdoer to set up a jus tertii under which he cannot claim. But if this be the fact in case of a finder, why should it not be equally the fact in the case of a bailee? Why, as against a wrongdoer, should the nature of the plaintiff's interest in the thing converted be any more relevant to the inquiry , and therefore admissible in evidence, than in the case of a finder?"
---1)why's it not open to the defendant to inquire into the nature etc.?
2) why can't the true owner come into the discussion at all?
3) and what does that whole big blob of red mean?
