Currie and Others against Anderson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 February 1860 |
| Date | 07 February 1860 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 121 E.R. 223
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, AND THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 29. L. J. QB. 87; 6 Jur N. S. 442; W. R. 274. Referred to Kibble v. Gough, 1878, 38L. T. 206.
[592] cases abgued and determined in hilary vacation, XXIII. victoria. The Judge* of the Court of Queen's Bench who sat in Bane in this Vacation were: Wightman J,, Crompton J., Hill J. curhie AND others against anderson. Tuesday, February 7th, 1860. Defendant, on 27th September, 18.55, verbally ordered of plaintiffs, at Liverpool, goods of the value of more than 101., to be sent out to Constantinople, by a steamer named by defendant, for The " Phcenix," a ship of defendant, then in the Black Sea. Plaintiffs selected the goods in accordance with the order, and sent them to the steamer, together with two barrels of flour belonging to defendant, which he had sent to plaintiffs' warehouse for the purpose of being forwarded with the other gooda, Defendant told plaintiffs to make out, and plaintiffs made out, the bill of lading for the goods in their own name, making the goods deliverable to Messrs. H. & Co., or assigns, at Constantinople, to whom plaintiffs had before consigned goods, and to whom defendant, on that account, wished the goods to be made deliverable. The bill of lading included the two barrels of flour. On 13th October, 1855, plaintiffs shipped the goods, including the flour, on the named steamer, and paid freight for the whole. On 16th October, defendant repaid them the freight and received from them the bill of lading, which he forwarded to the captain of The " Phoenix," who did not receive it till March, 1856, when, finding that the goods were not forthcoming at Constantinople, he returned it to defendant. On 5th November, 1856, defendant forwarded the bill of lading to plaintiffs, enclosed in the following letter. " I enclose the bill of lading for stores aent out to the barque 'Phoenix.' Please see after them. I think the master of the steamer must account for them."-Held that, upon these facts, there was ample evidence that defendant had accepted and actually received the goods, within the meaning of sect. 17 of the Statute of Frauds, 29 Car. 2, c. 3. [S. C. 29 L. J. Q. B. 87 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 442; 8 W. R. 274. Referred to, Kibble v. Gough, 1878, 38 L. T. 206.] Declaration for goods sold and delivered. Plea. Never indebted. Issue thereon. [593] At the trial, before Watson B., at the Liverpool Summer Assizes, 1859, the facts appeared to be as follows. The plaintiffs were merchants and ship chandlers at Liverpool, carrying on business under the firm of Currie, Newton & Co., and the defendant was a ship owner at Aberdeen. On 27th September, 1855, the defendant called at the plaintiffs' office and saw Mr. Newton, one of the plaintiffs, and verbally ordered of him some stores, to the amount of 621. 10s. for The "Phoenix," a ship of the defendant then in the Black Sea, to be sent out from Liverpool, by one of Mclver's steamers, to Constantinople. The defendant directed Newton to enter the stores out at the Custom House. Before he ordered the stores, he had asked Newton whether the plaintiff* had ever sent any goods out to Constantinople, and whether they had any agent there. Newton answered that they had no agent there, but had once consigned iome gooda there to Messrs. Hanson & Co. Newton, having selected the gooda 224 CUARIE V. ANDERSON 2 EL. 4; EL. 591. according to the defendant's order, namely 5 tierces of beef, 4 barrels of pork, 2 barrels of floor, 1 barrel of peas, and 1 keg of barley, entered them out at the Custom House, and sent them down to Mclver's steamer " Melita " in a cart, together with two other barrels of flour, which the defendant, having purchased of some other person, had in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Castle and Others v Sworder
...of the bill of lading by the consignee might be equivalent to an actual receipt of the goods , and on that ground Curne v Andetson (2 El & El 592) was decided. [Crompton, J. In the case of Meredith v. Meigh (2 E. & B. 364) there must have been an invoice; but an invoice is not the indicia o......