Elizabeth Langton v Higgins
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 May 1859 |
| Date | 05 May 1859 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 157 E.R. 896
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 28 L. J. Ex. 252; 7 W. R. 489. Referred to, Heilbutt v. Hickson, 1872, L. R. 7 C. P. 450. Approved, Anderson v. Morrce, 1876, 1 A. C. 740.
LANGTON V. HIGGINS 4 H & N 4fl3 elizabeth langton v. higgins. May 5, 1859.-In January, 1858, C. agreed to sell to the plaintiff all the crop of oil of peppermint grown on his farm in that year at 21s per pound. In September C. wrote to the plaintiff for bottles to put the oil in. The plaintiff sent the bottles, and C. having weighed the oil put it in the plaintiffs bottles, labelled them with the weight, and made out invoices. Before, however, he had completed the filling of the bottles he sold and delivered several of them to the defendant. The plaintiff had for many years past bought of C. his crop of oil of peppermint, and it was usual for C., when the bottles were filled, to deliver them to a earner to take to a railway station. In detinue, by the plaintiff against the defendant, for the bottles of oil of peppermint delivered to him : Held, that the putting the oil in the plaintiffs bottles was an act of appropriation which vested the property in the plaintiff. [S. C. 28 L. J. Ex. 252; 7 W. R. 489. Referred to, Heilbutt v. Hichon, 1872, L. R. 7 C. P. 450. Approved, Anderson v. Monce, 1876, 1 A. C. 740.] The first count of the declaration was in detinue for cases and bottles of oil of pappermint. The second count was in trover for the same goods. Pleas. First: not guilty. Secondly: that the goods were riot, nor were any or either of them, the plaintiff's as alleged. At the trial, before Martin, B., at the London sittings after last Hilary Term, the following facts appeared :-The plaintiff was a wholesale druggist in London, and the defendant was a wholesale druggist at Liverpool. For many years past the plaintiff had been in the habit of contracting with one Gaiter, a farmer at Leveringtou in Cambridgeshire, for the purchase of all the oil of peppermint to be distilled from the crop of peppermint which might be grown on his farm in that year. The contracts were made in the early pait of the year, and Carter obtained from the plaintiff advances in respect of them. On the 27th January, 1858, the plaintiff and Carter entered into the following agreement:- "London, Jan. 27, 1858. " The undersigned, Frederick Carter of Leverington, [403] agrees to sell to Messrs. William Langton & Co, of London, the whole of his crop of oil of peppeimint grown in the year 1858, at the rate of 21s. per Ib. "But should the said crop amount to 250 bottles of oil, he agrees to deduct 6d. per Ib. from the said 21s. and above that quantity Is. per Ib., provided the Messrs. Langton find the said 21s. per Ib. is more than they can reasonably afford " This agreement is made upon the condition that Messrs Langton & Co. advance the said Frederick Carter 10001. on account of the above named crop, and pay the amount due at the time of delivery by two, four and six months bills. "fred. carter" Previously to this agreement advances had been made by the plaintiff to Carter to the extent of 3101., and on the day the agreement was signed Carter gave to the plaintiff a bill of sale of his live and dead stock, crop of oil of peppermint, crops of corn, furniture, &&, as a security for the 3101. and further advances to the extent of 10001. It- was usual for the plaintiff to send to Carter bottles to be filled with the oil of peppermint, and, in September, Carter applied for the bottles and some gut-skin to cover them. The plaintiff accordingly sent him two gross of bottles with gut-skin. On the 8th of October, Carter wrote to the plaintiff, "We shall lose no time in getting the oil off." It was the business of Mrs. Carter to put the oil of peppermint in the bottles, which, as on previous occasions...
To continue reading
Request your trial