Dunlop & Company v Lambert
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 July 1839 |
| Date | 16 July 1839 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 9 E.R. 244
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF SESSION, SCOTLAND.
Mews' Dig. iii. 197; xiii. 552. Cited in Colonial Insurance Co. of New Zealand, v. Adelaide M. I. Co., 1886, 12 A.C. 139; and see S.C. 6 Cl. and F. 600.
Carrier - Contract - Risk.
MACLEAN & ROBINSON, 663 DUNLOP V. LAMBERT [1839] [663] APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF SESSION, SCOTLAND. WILLIAM DUNLOP and Company, Appellants.*-Sir William Follett; GEORGE ANTHONY LAMBERT and Others, Respondents.-Attorney General (Campbell)-James Anderson [16th July 1839]. [Mews' Dig. iii. 197; xiii. 552. Cited in Colonial Insurance Co. of New Zealand, v. Adelaide M. I. Co., 1886, 12 A.C. 139; and see S.C. 6 Cl. and F. 600.] Carrier-Contract-Risk.-In an action by consignors for value of a puncheon of whiskey thrown overboard, and lost, against ship owners, who by bill of lading acknowledged the shipment of the goods in good order and condition, " to be delivered in the like good order at Newcastle," dangers and accidents of the sea excepted, and which bill of lading the consignors transmitted to the consignee, with an invoice of the price, including the amount of freight and of the insurance paid by consignors, and charged against the consignee,-the consignors libelled a contract by the ship owners to deliver the goods at Newcastle, and also an agreement by the consignors to be answerable to the consignee for the safe delivery of the goods. The judge at the trial directed the jury in point of law, " That as it appeared that the pursuers at the time of furnishing the spirits in question had sent an invoice thereof to the purchaser, bearing that the same had been insured, and that the freight thereof and insurance were charged against the said purchaser in the invoice, the pursuers were not entitled in law or interest to recover the value of the said puncheon, from, the defenders :"-Held (reversing interlocutor of the Court of [664] Session, which disallowed an exception to said direction,) that said direction was in point of law not correct in the mode in which it left the case with the jury,-in respect that it withdrew from their consideration the fact whether the goods had been delivered to the carriers on the risk of the consignors or of the consignee, and the question whether there was a special contract between the consignors and consignee sufficient to enable the consignors to recover in the action. On the 31st August 1833 the appellants, who are wholesale spirit merchants, sent to the agents at Leith of the respondents, who are ship owners, a puncheon of spirits, to be carried to the purchaser, Mathew Robson, near Newcastle, and a bill of lading was granted by the respondents' agents to the appellants in these terms : - "Mr. Mathew Robson, Shipped by William Dunlop & Co., in good order and condition, Collier Row, by H^g|i- in and upon the good ship Ardincaple, whereof Macleod is master No'lsesT'lOS gs. care ^or tne present voyage, and now lying in the port of Leith, and of Mr. Lattimer, New- bound for Newcastle, one puncheon of spirits, bung-full, with excise castle. permit, being marked and numbered as in the margin, and to be delivered in the like good order, and well conditioned, at the foresaid port of Newcastle, (ail and every other dangers and accidents of the seas, rivers, and navigation, of what soever nature and kind, excepted,) unto Mr. Mathew Robson, Collier Row, by Hough- To be taken out in ton-le-Spring, or to his assigns, freight for the said goods being running days after ship's paid by William Dunlop & Co. at primage and average accus- arrival, or to pay tomed. In witness whereof the master or purser of the said ship guineas per day demur- hath affirmed to two [665] bills of lading, all of this tenor and date, rage' one of which being accomplished, the other to stand void. Dated in Leith, 31st August 1833. (Signed) Laing and Sword, Agents." The appellants transmitted to Robson, along with the bill of lading, an invoice, and a letter (in part), in the following words:- 15 D., B., and M., 884. 1232. 244 DUNLOP V. LAMBERT [1839] MACLEAN & ROBINSON, 666 Edinburgh, 3lst Avguit 1833. " Mr. Mathew Robson, "Bo* of William Dunlop & Co. Rectified British Spirits One puncheon malt aqua, fine quality, W. D. & J. B., and Compounds. No. 1369,-105 g. 11 (). P. are 116 gs. p. 12s. 9d. £73 19 0 To freight paid to Newcastle, 10s.; insurance, \ per cent. . . . 0180 Puncheon with spirits not to be returned . . . . . . 100 £75 17 0 Edinburgh, 31 s August 1833. "Mr. Mat. Robson, " We hope the above will reach you in time and give satisfaction. We reckon the quality very fine, and we trust this will be the introduction to many good transactions between us both. For amount, we enclose our draft at three months, payable in London, which please return us accepted and domiciled on approval of the shipment. The spirits will be in Newcastle on Monday morning if all is well, and your farther orders will very much oblige yours respectfully, " wm. dunlop & Co." In the manifest of the cargo of the Ardincaple, there was the following entry: - " Consignee, Mathew Robson; residence, Newcastle; goods, marks, etc., one puncheon [666] whiskey, freight paid, 10s.; amount total invoice, £75 17s." The goods having been lost, and not delivered, the appellants brought an action against the respondents for the value thereof; and (by their amended summons) libelled, " that upon the 31st day of August last the pursuers shipped on board the s-team ship or vessel called the Ardincaple of Newcastle, then lying at the port of Leith, and bound for Newcastle, one puncheon of spirits, bung-full, with excise permit, marked W. D., No. 1369, 105 gs.; addressed to Mr. Mathew Robson, Collier Row, by Houghtoun-le-Spring, care of Mr. Lattimer, Newcastle, to be delivered in good order and well-conditioned, at the aforesaid port of Newcastle, as addressed, conform to memorandum, receipt, or bill of lading granted by Messrs Laing and Sword, agents at Leith for the owners of the said steam ship or vessel, bearing date the said 31st day of August last, and acknowledging that the freight for the said goods was paid, to be produced in process, and here referred to, and held as repeated brevitatis causa; the pursuers at the same time having undertaken by their agreement, and being answerable to the said Mathew Robson for the safe delivery of the said puncheon;" and the conclusion was for payment of the value of the goods to the appellants. The respondents, among other defences, objected to the title or interest of the appellants to sue for and recover the amount (the said defence being designated preliminary). The Lord Ordinary pronounced the following interlocutor, disposing of the preliminary character of the said defence: - " 20th June 1835.-Lord Fullerton. Having heard [667] parties' procurators, finds that the averments of the pursuers are relevant to' support their title and interest to insist in the present action, and therefore repels the preliminary defences as urged in bar of further procedure in the action, and appoints issues to be prepared in common form upon the matter in dispute." The cause then went to trial on the following issues : " 1. Whether on or about the 31st day of August 1833 the pursuers shipped a puncheon of spirits on board the Ardincaple of Newcastle, a vessel belonging to the defenders, for the purpose of being conveyed to Newcastle, and delivered to- Mathew llobson, Collier Row, Houghton-le-Spring, care of Mr. Lattimer, Newcastle? And 2. Whether the defenders wrongfully failed to deliver the said puncheon to the said Mathew Robson, and are indebted and resting owing to the pursuers in the sum of .£75 17s. or any part thereof, with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Albazero, The (Albacruz)
...as normally to be inferred, as agent on behalf of the named consignee. 11However, in three cases prior to the decision of this House in Dunlop v. Lambert (1839) 6 C1. & Fin. 600, the right of suit of the consignor was put upon the broader ground of privity of contract. Those were a decision......
-
Albazero, The (Albacruz)
...and to seek to determine what principles can be deduced from them. By far the most important of them is Dunlop Lambert (1839) 6 CL & F 600: Maclean & Robinson 667: a decision of the House of Lords which is of course binding upon this Court for what it decides. That case reached the House o......
-
Darlington Borough Council v Wiltshier Northern Ltd
...House of Lords in The Albazero [1977] A. C. 774 of the continuing validity, in such a context, of the earlier decision of the House in Dunlop v Lambert [1839] 6 Cl & F 600. 42 It is unnecessary to go into details of the circumstances in The Albazero and Dunlop v Lambert, since what Lord Dip......
-
Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd
...neither his property nor at his risk. Consideration of gives rise to a real question whether it propounded any new principle at all. 4 Dunlop v. Lambert concerned the loss of a cargo consisting of a puncheon of whisky while in course of carriage by sea between Leith and Newcastle. The pur......
-
Table of Cases
...Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847, 113 LT 386, [1914–15] All ER Rep 333 83–89, 97, 98, 101 Dunlop v Lambert (1839) 6 Cl & F 600, 7 ER 824 100, 104 Dyer v Dyer (1788) 2 Cox Eq Cas 92, [1775–1802] All ER Rep 205, 30 ER 42 223 Table of Cases xxv El Ajou v Dollar Land Hol......
-
Contract Law
...this point, following a careful and comprehensive summary of relevant English authorities: beginning with the rule in Dunlop v Lambert(1839) 6 Cl & Fin 600; 7 ER 824; its re-statement by Lord Diplock in The Albazero[1977] AC 774 at p 847; the subsequent extension of that rule to the case of......
-
Upholding Contractual Intentions Lord Denning's Dissent in Scruttons Ltd v Midland Silicones Ltd [1962] AC 446
...pp 294–295, per Lord Russell; and at p 297, per Lord Keith. 78 Albacruz v Albazero (The Albazero) [1977] AC 774. 79 Dunlop v Lambert (1839) 6 Cl & F 600, 7 ER 824. that property in the goods be transferred before breach, the original promise could be treated as having entered into the contr......
-
Contract Law
...Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd [2001] 1 AC 518. The requirements for the “narrow ground” derived from the case of Dunlop v Lambert (1839) 6 Cl & F 600; 7 ER 824 are discussed in Family Food Court v Seah Boon Lock [2008] 4 SLR(R) 272 at [40]–[44]. 76 [1994] 1 AC 85 at 97. 77 [2001] 1 AC 518......