« PreviousContinue »
1815. never parted with their right of stoppage in tran
situ. Their title was never out of them. The CRAVEN and Others sugars were sold to Caldas on the 11th of May,
and they were in the plaintiffs' warehouse till the RYDER.
His Lordship left the case to the Jury, and they expressed themselves of opinion, That it was contrary to the course of business, and to the defendant's duty, to give up the bill of lading without the receipt; that the defendant had received the sugars on account of Craven and Co., and had given a restrictive receipt accordingly.
Verdict for plaintiffs.
Solicitor General, Vaughan, serjeant, and Marryat, for plaintiffs.
Lens and Best, serjeants, and Campbell, for defendant.
In the ensuing term, Lens, the case of Lickbarrow v. Maserjeant, moved, that the ver- son, 2 T. R. 63., and cited 6 dict should be set aside, and a East, 21, in notis, for the sake new trial granted, on the of Mr. Justice Buller's judgground that the plaintiffs' right ment, as embracing all the law to stop the goods in transitu on this subject, and deciding was gone, after there had been
the point. an absolute sale to French and Lord Chief Justice Gibbs Co., and two other subsequent observed, that the usage and sales. He relied upon the ar- custom of merchants was, that guments which he had urged the person who was in posses. at the trial, and referred to sion of the receipt should alone
be entitled to the bill of lading; full report, 2 Marshall's Rep. 1815.
CRAVEN except to the person who could The case of Lickbarrow v. and Others produce the receipt in exchange. Mason, both in its principle
RYDER. Consequently, the person hold. and circumstances, is very dising the receipt had a control tinguishable from the above over the goods, till he had ex- case. That case determined, changed it for the bill of lading. and the decision is undoubtedly His Lordship added, that the of the first importance to complaintiffs had unquestionably merce, that the consignee of not abandoned their right of goods, by the assignment of stoppage in transitu, in case of the bill of lading to a third the insolvency of the pur. person for a valuable consichasers, until the goods were deration, might confer an ab. delivered ; and that, although solute right and property upon French and Co. might sell the such assignee, indefeasible by sugars again, the plaintiff's any claim on the part of the might still reserve to them. consiguor; subject, however, selves the right of stoppage. to this restriction, that the as. That the defendant, therefore, signment should be made with gave the bill of lading to Cal. good faith to all parties, and das in his own wrong, because, without notice to the assiguee according to usage and com- that the goods were not paid mon sense, he should not have
for. In Cuming v. Brown, 9 delivered it without taking the East, 506, with a view to a receipt in exchange.
" I do
more liberal commercial polinot,” said his Lordship, “relycy, the principle in Lickbarrow maioly on the particular form v. Mason was extended. In of the receipt (though that is that case it was determined, not to be laid out of our con- that if the assignee of the bill sideration); but I think that if of lading took the assignment, the receipt had been in the bona fide, without notice of usual form, its effect would any such circumstances have been the same. The
ought, in fairness to have tied ground of my opinion is, that up the hands of the consignee the original seller had never from a transfer, he acquired a parted with his right of stop- good title against the conpage in transitu.” The rest of
signor; and that therefore, al. the Court concurred. Rule though he knew at the time refused.See, for a more that the consignor had pot ob
tained a money payment for title was given by the plain
the goods, but had taken the tiffs to French and Co.; as it CRAVEN consignee's acceptance , pay- was a sale, after the ordinary and Others able at a future day, not yet manner, of goods to be for.
arrived, the consignor, never- warded to order, and as the RYDER.
theless, could not defeat his goods were on their transit, it
case, no negotiable and trans-
the possession of French and the ordinary manner, (omitting Co. by the plaintiffs, which, acthe words, for and on account cording to the custom of mer. of the plaintiffs,") it may be chants, was capable of creating well to see how the case would
a property in another by inthen stand. There is no doubt dorsement, delivery, or transthat if the plaintiffs had trans- mission, the transaction was to mitted a bill of lading to be viewed in the ordinary light French and Co., and French of a sale of goods, which, and Co. bad assigned it to having been sold by the origiCaldas for a valuable consi. nal rendee to a third person, deration, and without notice
previous to delivery, and with to Caldas of any
circumstance out the assent of the vendor, which might have impeached the latter had a clear right to his title, the right of stop. stop in transitu-upon the insol. page in transitu would have vency of the first purchaser. been superseded, upon the au- See note page 20, where the thority of the above casos. cases of stoppage in transilu But as no such transferable are collected and examined.-.
Gross and Another v. LA PAGE.
A. contracts to sell to B.
. . 6., is illegal for
HIS was a special action on the case to re
cover damages for a breach of contract upon some Russian the sale of some hemp.
hemp; and the ship on board of which the
hemp is to be On the 9th of June, 1815, the plaintiffs sold to conveyed, is the defendant 25 tons of sound, Petersburgh, clean Petersburgh by hemp, warranted to be of a good and merchant- A. is the im able quality, at 55l. per ton. The ship, on board hemp. By the of which the hemp was to be 'conveyed, was to stat: 10 and 11 sail from Petersburgh before the 31st of August,
any subject of and the hemp was to be taken according to the this realm to landing scale when the vessel arrived. The hemp trade with arrived in July, 1815, and the price had fallen he be a memconsiderably before its arrival. The name of Mr. ber of the felMetcalfe, who was the broker, had been used for merchants
trading to the purpose of the hemp passing the landing scale. those coun: It stood in the London Docks in his name up to not a member the 21st of August. But the plaintiffs were the pany ; but the importers of the hemp.
hemp is prolanding scale,
and in the Best, serjeant, and F. Pollock, for defendant, docks, by using objected," that the plaintiffs, who were the im- broker, who porters of the, hemp, were not members of the owo
. Russian Company. They relied on the 10 and II if this Wm. 3. c. 6., by which the trade to Russia was legality in the confined to the Fellowship of the Russian Com- will render it
void, and enpany, and to such persons as were admitted of title B. to of it, as a defence to an action brought against him by A. for not fuikilling his agree.
of the Com
tected at the
was one of the
be such an il.
that fellowship. The plaintiffs had been trading in defiance of that act: the bill of lading shewed that the hemp was imported by them. But the defendant had a right to expect that they had ohtained the freedom of that company, otherwise the hemp might be forfeited or seized. Under such circumstances, the defendant could not be compelled to take it.
The Solicitor General, and Marryat, for the plaintiffs. - It is no objection to the contract. The act may prohibit the plaintiffs from trading to Russia, not being members of the Company; but the importation of the article is not therefore prohibited. After the commodity arrives, the shipper, though not free of the Company, may sell it, though he could not legally import it. It is not the less a subject of contract because it is illegal to import it. The parties themselves may be under disabilities; but the article is of free trade.
DALLAS, Justice. I confess I am much struck with the objection which has been made by the defendant's counsel. The importation is prohibited to all but members of the Russian Company. If imported by unlicensed persons it is seizable. The amount of the objection is, that the defendant cannot be compelled to accept an article which might be liable to seizure in the hands of a purchaser. I will not stop the cause, but I will save
The plaintiffs had a verdict on the merits.