Burgos v Nascimento; McKeand, Claimant
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 November 1908 |
| Date | 13 November 1908 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Chancery Division
Eve, J.
Burgos v. Nascimento; McKeand, Claimant
Morison v. GrayENR 2 Bing. 260
Waring v. CoxENR 1 Camp. 369
Coxe v. HardenENR 4 East, 211
Sewell v. BurdickDID=ASPM 5 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 376 (1884) 52 L. T. Rep. 445 10 A. C. 74
Interpleader — Indorsement of bill of lading — Intention
Sewell v. Burdick (5 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 376 (1884); 52 L. T. Rep. 445; 10 A. C. 74) applied. What Best, C. J. is reported to have said in Morison v. Gray (2 Bing. 260) — via, that the indorsement of the bill of lading to an agent for taking possession conferred a special property on him — was not, having regard to the cases of Waring v. Cox (1 Camp. 369) and Coxe v. Harden (4 East, 211) intended to lay down a principles of general applications.
MARITIME LAW CASES. 181 CHAN.DIV.] Burgos v. Nascimento ; McKeand, Claimant. [CHAN. DIV. HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE-. CHANCERY DIVISION. Friday Nov. IS, 1903. (Before Eve, J.) BURGOS. NASCIMENTO; McKEAND, Claimant (a) Inter pleader--Indcrtemeni of bill of lading - Intention - Agent of contignee-"No eontidera-iion - Sight of action at against judgment creditor and th - ri/ - specud properly. An untviitfied judgment creditor of a firm canted a ws.it of ft. fa. to be ietued for the arrtttof a cargo of corkwood belonging to and marked with the firm't name. Upon arrival at London Docks the corkwood woe teited. An agent for remmaJ and warehousing claimed the corkwood. He claimed it for the consignee, for whom he acted under an indorte. muni by the contignee on the bitt of lading. Such indortement won made by the contignee previous to the arrival of corkwood. Held, that, in order to eaoceed, the claimant mutt show that he had n right of special property or preient pottettion of the goods, OR i, although the indorsement of the bill of lading conferred on him the right to demand pottet- - ton, the object of the indorsement wot only to enable him to hold ard warehouse the goods for the contignee, who had no intention to clothe him with any property in them, iutd hit claim therefore failed. Sewell v. Bnrdick (5 Atp. Afar. Law Oat. 876 (1884); 52 L. T. Sep. 445; 10 A. 0.74) applied. What Beit, OJ. it reported to have nod in Morison v. Gray (2 Sing. 260) - w., thuk tue indorsement of the bill of lading to an agent for tatting pottettion conferred a tfecial pro. perty on htm - wot not, having regard to the eatet of Waring - . Cox (1 Camp. 369) and Ooze v. Harden (4 Eatt, 211) intc ded to lay down a principle of general application. mOTIOH. By s judgment dated the 14th July 1908 in the action by Jose Lopes Burgos (since deceased) and by an order of reviver, his widow Hermlnia 0. do A. da 0. Bnrgoi, plaintiff, and Porpbirio A. P. Do Naeoimento, defendant, it waa ordered that the plaintiff, the legal representative of the estate of Jose L. Bnrgos ont of his ostato pay the defendant a ram which, to the extent of 59081.6e. 64. interest and costs, remained unsatisfied. The defendant having obtained formation that the plaintiffs representative, who with three others was carrying on the deceased's business of cork merchants in Portugal, was - hipping goods to England sold by Heroid and Co., commission agents, on the 24th Sept. 1908, instructed the sheriff of the ootraty of London to levy execution under a fi,fa. upon seventy bales of corkwood with the J. L. B. mark which arrived at London Docks on board the steanuhip Britannia on tlie 30th Sept The execntic , wasissued on the 1st OcL and levied hy seizure of the seventy bales at the docks before any claim had been made to them. James Alexander MoKeand through his solicitors on the 6fchvct 1908 forwarded to the then solicitors of the judgment creditor the invoices of the goods showing as alleged that Bneaey Brothers and Nephew, of Bermondsey, 8.E., were the actual owners of the goods, aad had transferred the goods to the claimant by indorsing the bill of lading during the transit of the goods. On the 6th Oot the sheriff caused an inter, pleader summons to be issued, and in bis affidavit filed in support of bis claim MoKeand claimed the seventy bales of corkwood as agent for Bussey Brothers and Nephew, "the sacsehaving been shipped to them, and they have paid for the same by their acceptance at thirty days, and I hold the bill of lading for the goods, which bill of lading was indorsed to me by Bassey Brothers ana Nephew in order that I might remove and ware-bouse the goods on their behalf." The" interpleader...
To continue reading
Request your trial