Fragano v Long
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1825 |
| Date | 01 January 1825 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 107 E.R. 1040
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 6 D. & R. 283; 3 L. J. K. B. O. S. 177. Principle applied, Alexander v. Gardner, 1835, 1 Bing. N. C. 677. Referred to, Ex parte pearson, 1868, L. R. 3 Ch. 451. Applied, Castle v. Playford, 1872, L. R. 7 Ex. 100. Referred to, Anderson v. Morice, 1875-76, L. R. 10 C. P. 613; 1 App. Cas. 713.
FRAGANC/ against LONG. 1825. A., resident at Naples, sent an order to M. and Co., hardwaremen at Birmingham, " to dispatch to him certain goods on insurance being effected. Terms, three months' credit from the time of arrival." M. and Co. (having marked the package with A.'s initials,) dispatched the goods by the canal to Liverpool, and effected an insurance, declaring the interest to be in A. At Liverpool, the goods were delivered by the agent of M. and Co. to the owner of a vessel bound to Naples, through whose negligence they were damaged: Held, that the property in the goods vested in A. as soon as they were dispatched from Birmingham, and that the terms of the order did not make the arrival of the 4B.&C.220. FKAGANO V. LONG 1041 goods at Naples a condition precedent to A.'s liability to pay for them, and that he might therefore maintain an action for the injury done to the goods through the negligence of the ship owner. [S. C. 6 D. & E. 283; 3 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 177, Principle applied, Alexander v. Gardner, 1835, 1 Bing. N. C. 677. "Referred to, Ex parte Pearson, 1868, L. E. 3 Ch. 451. Applied, Castle v. Playford, 1872, L. E. 7 Ex. 100. Eeferred to, Anderson v. Morice, 1875-76, L. E. 10 0. P. 613; 1 App. Cas. 713.] Assumpsit against defendant as owner of the brig or vessel " James and Theresa," for negligence in shipping a cask of hardware. At the trial before Hullock B., at the Lancaster Summer Assizes 1824, the following facts appeared in evidence. Mason and Sons, hardwaremen at Birmingham in April 1822, received an order from the plaintiff residing at Naples, of which the following is a translation, "Naples, March 28th, 1822. Order transmitted by G. Fragano, of this city, to Mason and Sons of Birmingham, through Mr. F. L. for the following merchandise, to be dispatched on insurance being effected. Terms to be three months' credit from the time of arrival." The order then specified the goods. In pursuance of this order, the cask of hardware in question marked with the plaintiffs initials was sent by the canal from Birmingham, by Mason and Sons, to Messrs. Stokes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Albazero, The (Albacruz)
-
Cho Yang Shipping Company Ltd v Coral (UK) Ltd
...5 B & Ad 521) But the shipper may be shipping 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 o......
-
Vagres Compania Maritima S.A. v Nissho-Iwai American Corporation (Karin Vatis)
...to fix the time of payment, and not to make the landing a condition precedent. For that point it is enough to refer to the decision in Fragano v. Long." 17 Bosanquet J. said at page 680: "The objection that the arrival of the goods was a condition precedent to payment is answered by the cas......
-
Browne and Another v Hare and Another
...which the caigo was deliverable to themselves unless they meant to retain a control over it [Crornpton, J , referred io Fiagano v. Long (4 B. & C 219).] There was nothing to prevent Gooldeu from altering the disposition of the goods, if they had [825] arrived and the vendees had refused to ......