Bock v Gorrissen
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 November 1860 |
| Date | 26 November 1860 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 45 E.R. 689
BEFORE THE LORD CHANCELLOR LORD CAMPBELL.
S. C. 30 L. J. Ch. 39; 7 Jur. (N. S.), 81; 3 L. T. 424; 9 W. R. 209.
[434] bock v. gorrissen. Before the Lord Chancellor Lord Campbell. Nov. 21, 23, 26, 1860. [S. C. 30 L. J. Ch. 39; 7 Jur. (N. S.), 81 3 L. T. 424; 9 W. R. 209.] Foreign correspondents of a London firm direct the firm to purchase for them Mexican bonds to a specified amount, at a specified price, and to hold the bonds at the disposal of the correspondents. The London firm make and notify the purchase, and write to the correspondents that they will, until further order, retain the bonds for safe custody. Held, that the letters constituted a special contract sufficient to exclude a general lien on the part of the London firm, if they would otherwise have been entitled to any. Semble, that a general lien cannot be claimed according to any general law of principal and agent, but only as arising from dealings in some particular trade, as to which a custom to that effect has been established. This was an appeal from the decision of the Master of the Rolls, holding that the 690 BOCK V. GORRISSEN 2 DE 0. F. & J. 438. Eeapondents were entitled to a lien on certain Mexican bonds which had been deposited with some of the Kespondents, and on this ground dismissing the Plaintiff's bill. For some time previously and up to the month of November 1857 Johann Julius Lomer and David Gustav Uhde, two of the Defendants, carried on the business of merchants in partnership at Hamburgh, under the style or firm of " Julius Lomer & Uhde," and traded chiefly with Mexico. The Defendants August William Gorrissen, Vincent Amandus Hiiffel and Gottlieb Adolph Frendentheil, who previously and up to the month of November 1857 carried on the business of merchants in partnership in London, under the style of " Gorrissen, Hiiffel & Co.," acted as correspondents of Lomer & Uhde in London, and received and paid money on their behalf, and [435] occasionally accepted bills of exchange drawn upon them by the Plaintiff's, who made remittances to secure or reimburse the London firm in respect of such remittances. On the 18th of June 1857 the Hamburgh firm wrote to the London firm as follows:- "If you can buy Mexican 3 per cent, bonds at 22, 10s. per cent., and, as you arranged with our Lomer, will draw on us thereagainst at three months' date, but charge in the whole for the purchase and drafts only one-half per cent, on the actual value for commission, we request you will take 10,000 for us and hold them at our disposal." The London firm accordingly bought on behalf of the Hamburgh firm sixty-nine Mexican bonds, purporting to secure 10,000 sterling, and on the 2d of July the London firm apprised the Hamburgh firm of the purchase by a letter in the following terms:- "Our last of the 29th ult. we presume to be in your possession, and the object of the present is to intimate to you that we have effected the purchase of 10,000 Mexican 3 per cents, at your limit. We hand you annexed the account thereof, the amount of which, 2267, 15s. Id., with which we debit you, we will reimburse ourselves upon you tomorrow at the exchange of the day." The account annexed to the last-mentioned letter was as follows :- " Messrs. Jul. Lomer & Uhde, Hamburgh, Drs. "To bought by their order and for their account 10,000 3 per cent. Mexican bonds at 22, 10s. per cent. ..... 2250." [436] The expenses and commission and stamps made the amount 2267, 15s. Id. The next day, July 3d, the London firm drew drafts on the Hamburgh firm for the amount of their account in respect of this transaction (2207, 15s. Id. and the stamp), which were duly honoured and paid at maturity. On the 4th of July the Hamburgh firm wrote to the London firm as follows :- "Hamburgh, 4th July 1857.-Messrs. G. H. & Co., London.-Leaving untouched the dispositions in your favor of the,27th ulto. and 2d. hist., we have booked in conformity your account for 10,000 Mexican 3 per cent, bonds, 2267, 15s., and expect to-morrow advice of your drafts, which shall be duly honoured for this amount. Of what do the petty charges (4s. 6d.) in this account consist'? We request you in the meanwhile to keep the bonds in safe custody, and at your convenience to give us the numbers of the same." On the 6th day of July 1857 the London firm sent to the Hamburgh firm a letter to the purport following : - "Since the despatch of our respects of the 3d instant we received your favour of the following day. " In compliance with you:1 wish we will, until further orders, retain for safe custody the 10,000 3 per cent. Mexican bonds bought for you, and we annex at foot a statement of the numbers of these papers for convenient service." And at the foot of the letter was annexed a list of the numbers of the bonds. On the 19th of November the London firm wrote to [437] the Hamburgh firm, to state that they had been compelled to stop payment. The letter proceeded in these terms. "The misfortune which has overtaken us is, without doubt, already known to you. The blows which we sustained have been too hard to allow of the possibility ZDEQ.F.&J.fiS. BOCK V. QOERISSEN 691 of saving ourselves. We have deeply to regret that you also are interested with us; we can, however, give you the assurance that your Mexican bonds lying with us are unjeopardized." On the same 19th of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Majeau Carrying Company Pty Ltd v Coastal Rutile Ltd
-
Toll Logistics (Nz) Ltd v Andrew John McKay and John Joseph Cregten Coa
...9 At 54–55. 10 At 56. 11 At 59. 12 At 60. 13 Citing the observations of Lord Campbell in Bock v Gorrissen (1860) 2 De G, F & J 434 at 443, 45 ER 689 at 693 (CA), and Lord Ellenborough in Rushforth v Hadfield (1806) 7 East 224 at 228, 103 ER 86 at 8788 14 At 61 per Stephen J. To similar effe......
-
Frith v Forbes
...must comply with the directions or not receive it at all. It is shewn by Brawlao v. Burnett (12 01. & P. 787); Bock v. Gmrissen (2 De G. F. & J. 434); Hill v. Smith (12 M. & W. 618); Inman v. Clare (Johns. 769), that Begbie & Co. had power to appropriate the cargoes so as to withdraw them f......
-
Continental Bank of Canada v. Henry Mogensen Transport Ltd. and Allwest Petroleum & Industrial Supplies Ltd., (1984) 54 A.R. 27 (QBM)
...Green v. All Motors Ltd., [1917] 1 K.B. 625, dist. [paras. 25-29]. Frith v. Forbes, 45 E.R. 1242, ref'd to. [para. 41]. Bock v. Gorrisen, 45 E.R. 689, ref'd to. [para. Vernon Finance Ltd. v. Brandt, 22 D.L.R.(2d) 231 (B.C.S.C.), ref'd to. [para. 59]. Alberta Drilling & Developing Compan......