Craven and Others v Ryder
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 December 1815 |
| Date | 14 December 1815 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 176
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
[100] Thursday, Dec 14, 1815. craven and others v. ryder (When the master of a ship receives goods on board and gives a receipt for them, it is his duty not to deliver the bill of lading, except to the person who can give the receipt in exchange A sells goods to B. to be delivered free on board a particular ship : he loads them on board, and takes a receipt from C , which purports that the goods were received " for and on account of A " Before * In the ensuing term, the Solicitor-General moved for a new trial, on the ground that the evidence of the custom of the trade was improperly rejected at the trial. The Court, however, was unanimous in opinion, that the ruling of Mr. Justice Heath was perfectly correct. All contracts made in the ordinary course of trade, without stipulation, warranty, or express provision, are presumed to incorporate the usage and custom of the trade to which they relate The trade is the ground of the contract, and the custom and usage, as members or parts of that trade, compose a whole thing. The contracting parties, being conusant of such customs, are presumed, and the presumption is generally consistent with the truth, to have it in their intention, that their contract shall not exclude such usages. But as it would be absurd to say that anyone should be bound to a condition, under whatever name, against his will, and contrary to his interest, so in all cases, where there is a warranty, or any special provision in the contract, contrary to the custom of the trade, such custom is excluded : the parties have varied the ordinary mode of dealing ; and the custom, as a mere usage of trade, having no separate legal obligation, the expressed will contradicts the construction of law, and the limitation or enlargement is of course exempted. No usage, therefore, of trade, can be set up in contravention of an express contract. The days of grace on a bill of exchange are no exception to the rule. Bills of exchange are totally mercantile contracts , days of grace are part of the nature of the thing , they are as much a part of the contract on a bill of exchange as the act of payment itself. They are not incidental but of essence : they are not adscititious, but the [99] thing itself. With respect to the sale of goods, if the contract be that they shall be paid for on a particular day, no custom can dispense with such a term. Nevertheless in ordinary cases, where no day of payment is expressed, the usage of the trade may introduce into the contract a particular credit, though the bargain, in form of law, raises a debitum ^n prcBsenti But the usage operates in that case, because not being excepted by express words, the parties are presumed to contract with reference to the general course of the trade. A variety of cases...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Todd v Stoakes
...with separate allowance. 1 Lev. 5. 6 Mod. 147, 167. 1 Mod. 9, 124. 1 Sid. 109, 425. 1 Vent. 42, 71. 1 Keb. 69, S. C. Cases B. R. 244. Holt 100. Skin. 323-349. The plaintiff was an apothecary, and served the defendant's wife with physic, who lived separate from her husband, and had a separat......
-
Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Barclay and Others (Glasgow Bonding Company Ltd)
...shares of £1 each. Prior to 20th December, 1941, these shares were beneficially owned by Mr. James Barclay, 15,000 shares, Mr. Stanley S. Holt, 100 shares, Mrs. D. S. Holt, now represented by her husband, the said Mr. Holt, 4,900 shares, and Long John Distilleries Ltd., 5,000 3In the view t......
-
The prospective effects of modifying existing law to accommodate preemptive self-defense by battered women.
...acquittals for preemptive attacks.(99) Such an expansion of the definition of imminence could have affected the outcome in United States v. Holt.(100) In Holt, a prisoner convicted of inmate weapons possession claimed that he had procured the weapon in question for purposes of self-defense.......