Coxe and Others against Harden and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 November 1803 |
| Date | 11 November 1803 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 811
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Distinguished, Morison v. Gray, 1824, 2 Bing. 261; Brandt v. Bowlby, 1831, 2 B. & Ad. 936. Referred to, Seagrave v. Union Marine Insurance Company, 1866, l. R. 1 C. P. 315. Discussed, Bateman v. Green, 1867, Ir. R. 2 C. L. 189; Shepherd v. Harrison, 1871, L. R. 5 H. L. 126.
coxe and others against harden and others. Friday, Nov. llth, 1803. The consignor of goods abroad, upon receipt of orders from a correspondent here, ships goods on account and at the risk of the consignee, and takes bills of lading from the captain making the goods deliverable to the consignor's own order, and transmits one of such bills unindorsed with the invoice to the consignee, inclosed in a letter informing him that he had drawn upon him for the amount, which he doubted not would meet due honour and close the account; and the consignor, by way of precaution, also sent another bill of lading indorsed to his own agent. Hld that upon the shipment on account and at the risk of the consignee the property in the goods vested in him, subject only to be devested by the consignor's stopping them while in transitu; and that upon the arrival of the goods, the^ consignee having obtained possession of them from the captain by the production of his unindorsed bill of lading, the property became absolute in the consignee, however wrongfully parted with by the captain without a competent authority from the shipper, and however answerable the captain might be to the shipper on that account.-Qu. Whether the mere indorsement of a bill of lading to an agent to enable him to receive the goods on- account of his principal, without any consideration, will enable such agent to maintain trover in his own name for the goods ? Semble not. [Distinguished, Morison v. Gray, 1824, 2 Bing. 261; Brandt v. Bmolby, 1831, 2 B. & Ad. 936. Referred to, Seagrave v. Union Marine Insurance Company, 1866, L. R. 1 C. P. 315. Discussed, Bateman v. Green, 1867, Ir. R. 2 C. L. 189; Shepherd v. Harrison, 1871, L. E. 5 H. L. 126.] In trover to recover the value of 18 mats of flax, at the trial before Ld. Ellenborough C.J. at the sittings at Guildhall after last Easter term, a verdict was 812 GOXE V. HARDEN 4 EAST, 212 found for [212] the plaintiffs for 2661. 7s., subject to the opinion of the Court upon the following ease: ò'. In February 1802 the flax in question was, by order of Oddy and Co. of London, purchased by Browne and Co. of Rotterdam, and shipped by them from thence for; Oddy and Co. on board the "Vrow Jannetje," a general ship, for London. On the 12th of February 1802 Browne and Co. se*nt the following letter to Oddy and Co., inclosing an invoice and a bill of lading to the order of Browne and Co. the shippers, but which was not indorsed: "Having none of your esteemed favours, we have the pleasure of handing you a bill of lading and invoice of the remainder of the flax we purchased for your account by order of Mr. Oddy, consisting of 18 mats, which are shipped by the " Vrow Jannetje," Jacob Purlevhet, master, for your place; the amount being f.3376 : 10. at exch. 35/6, 3171. Os. lOd. We have this day drawn on you at two usance, in favour of S. E. Lacon, Fisher and Co., not doubting it will meet due honour. We close this account in course." For the amount of the 18 mats of flax Browne and Co. drew a bill upon Oddy and Co., which, owing to embarrassment in their circumstances, they did not accept. Oddy and Co. became bankrupts on the 23d of February 1802, and a few days before delivered the aforesaid bill of lading, without indorsement, to the defendants, on account of a debt antecedently due to them from Oddy and Co. The ship and flax on the 29th of February 1802 arrived at London, and the defendants having paid the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burdick v Sewell
...of the parties was that the property should pass, otherwise the creditor uouid not dispose of the goods. They referred to Coxa v. Harden, 4 East, 211; Pease v. Qloahec, 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 394; L. Rep. 1 P. C. 219; 15 L. T. Rep. N. S. 6; The Figlia Maggiore,3 Mar. Lair Cas. O. S. 97: L. B......
-
Turner and Others, Assignees of Higginson and Deane, Bankrupts v The Trustees of The Liverpool Docks
...for them and on then aeunint and nsfc I/an (Ji^teel v Booktn (2 Exch 691), In re Humbmbton (1 De Gex, Bank Cas 262), (JvM v Haiden (4 East, 211) rlhe distinction is well established, that where goods are shipped on board a chartered vessel, the right of stoppage in tian-[554]-situ remains, ......
-
Mitchel against Ede and Others
...been paid by him, there was some doubt whether the property passed, for want of compliance with that condition. Again, in Goxe v. Harden (4 East, 211), goods were shipped, which had been purchased on account of the consignee, to whom an invoice was sent with a letter stating such purchase; ......
-
Kymer and Others v Suwercropp
...the 8th of July, on which clay Kenyon and Co. * Vide Haille v Smith, 1 B and P 564 , Walley v. Montgomery, 3 East, 585 ; Coxe v Harden. 4 East, 211 , Salomons v Ni\sen,2T R 674; Newborn v Thontton, 6 East, 17; Ltclbarrow v Masott. 2 R T. 63 ; I H BL 357; 2 H Bl 211 , 5 T R. 367 ; 6 East, 20......