Dickenson and Another v Land
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1860 |
| Date | 01 January 1860 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 175 E.R. 1017
QUEEN'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
Summer Assizes, 1860. DlCKENSON AND ANOTHER V LiANO. (The defendant, manager of a stone quarry, signed a shipping note, expressing that etone waa shipped on board the plaintiff's vessel to be earned for the owner of the quarry, who however never appeared In reality it was shipped for the purchaser of the stone, the real consignee In an action for freight and demurrage, evidence of usage that in such cases the quarry owner never paid freight, &c was admitted, and the question, whether the stone was shipped for the defendant, was left to the jury upon all the circumstances ) Action for freight and demurrage Declaration, that in consideration that the plaintiffs at the request of the defendant would receive on board their vessel a quantity of stone, to be carried in their vessel from Portland to London, for reward to them, the defendant promised them to receive the atone from out of the vessel within a reasonable time after its arrival at London 1018 DICKENSON V. LANO 2P & F. 189 Averment, that the plaintiffs received the stone on those terms and carried it to London, where it was ready to be discharged within a reasonable time, whereof the defendant had notice, and took a part of it away Breach, that he did not within a reasonable time take the residue of it away, but neglected so to do, whereby the plaintiffs lost the use of their vessel a long time and were put to charges, &c. Second count, for money payable for freight and for the conveyance of goods, and also for demurrage of a ship of the plaintiffs kept and detained by the defendant on demurrage, &c Pleas: 1. That the defendant did not agree as alleged 2. That the plaintiffs were not ready to deliver the stone within a reasonable time, according to the contract. [189] 3. That the plaintiffs prevented the defendant from taking away the residue of the stone according to the contract 4. That the plaintiffs, before any breach, exonerated the defendant. 5. (To the third count) That he did not detain the vessel 6. (To the second and third counts ) Never indebted Parry, Serjt., and Barnard for the plaintiffs Hawkins and Maud for the defendant. It was opened for the plaintiffs that one Williamson was the agent of the defendant, and had first delayed the unloading and then had disappeared. The case for the plaintiffs being closed, Hawkins opened for the defendant, that he was not the owner...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cho Yang Shipping Company Ltd v Coral (UK) Ltd
...as the agent of the consignee in which case the contract will be with the consignee. (eg Fragano v Long 4 B & C 219, Dickenson v Lano 2 F & F 188) A contract to pay the freight will not always be implied from the fact of shipment and the issue of a bill of lading. ( Smidt v Tiden LR 9 QB 44......