Holiday v Sigil
English trusts case law
Holiday v Sigil (1826) 2 C&P 176 is a case at common law concerning the recovery of a banknote.
Facts
The defendant had a £500 note that had been dropped by the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought an action for money had and received. The trial was by jury.
Judgment
Abbott CJ gave the following directions to the jury.
The question to be considered is, whether you are satisfied that the plaintiff lost this note, and that the defendant found it; for if you are, the plaintiff is entitled to your verdict. I should observe, that it is scarcely possible for a plaintiff, when his property is stolen, or accidentally lost, to prove the loss by direct evidence; and, therefore, that must in almost all cases be made out by circumstances.The jury found for the plaintiff, and damages of £500 were awarded.
The public source identifies “Holiday v Sigil” as english trusts case law. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Holiday, Sigil and English.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Holiday v Sigil”, the useful work is to connect “english trusts case law” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
The record creator and administrative purpose are central evidence, because official documentation reflects both action and institutional priorities. The source revision retrieved here is dated Mar 6, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q5880552. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1826.
Later summaries often reconcile disputed chronology or motive more neatly than the contemporary record permits. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.
- Event chronology
- Institutional context
- Locating named record creators
Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Holiday v Sigil”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Holiday v Sigil primary sources, Holiday v Sigil archive and Holiday research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Holiday v Sigil”?
- Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
- What chronology connects this entry to wider political or social change?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Holiday v Sigil” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.