Grant and Others v Norway and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 February 1851 |
| Date | 20 February 1851 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 138 E.R. 263
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 20 L. J. C. P. 93; 15 Jur. 296. Followed, Coleman v. Riches, 1855, 16 C. B. 118; Thorman v. Burt, 1886, 5 Asp. M. C. 563; Cox v. Bruce, 1886, 18 Q. B. D. 147. Referred to, Parsons v. New Zealand Shipping Company, [1901] 1 K. B. 566. Approved, Whitechurch, Limited v. Cavanagh, [1902] A. C. 117. See Hambro v. Burnand, [1903] 2 K. B. 422; [1904] 2 K. B.. 10; Compania Naviera Vasconzada v. Churchill, [1906] 1 K. B. 246. Adopted, Russo-Chinese Bank v. Li Yau Sam, [1910] A. C. 184. Referred to, Lloyd v. Grace, [1911] A. C. 716.
[665] cases argued and determined in the court of common pleas, in hilary vacation, in the fourteenth year op the reign of victoria. grant and others v. norway and others Feb. 20, 1851. [S. C. 20 L. J. C. P. 93; 15 Jur. 296. Followed, Coleman v. Riches, 1855, 16 C. B. 118; Thmman v. Bmt, 1886, 5 Asp. M. C. 563; Cox v. Bruce, 1886, 18 Q. B. D. 147. Eeferred to, Parsons v. New Zealand Shipping Company, [1901] 1 K. B. 566. Approved, Whitecliwrch, Limited v. Cavanagh, [1902] A. C. 117. See Hambro v. Burnand, [1903] 2 K. B. 422; [1904] 2 K. B. 10; Campania Naviera Fascmzada v. Chwchill, [1906] 1 K. B. 246. Adopted, 'Russo-CMnese Bank v. Li Yau Sam, [1910] A. C. 184. Eeferred to, Lloyd v. Grace, [1911] 2 K. B. 508; [1912] A. C. 716.] The master of a ship signing a bill of lading for goods which have never been shipped, is not to be considered as the agent of the owner in that behalf, so as to make the latter responsible to one who has made advances upon the faith of bills of lading so signed. This was an action upon the case by the indorsees of a bill of lading, against the owners of a vessel, to recover the amount of advances made by the former upon the bills of lading, the goods never having in fact been shipped. The declaration stated, that, on the 17th of April, 1846, the defendants were possessed of a certain ship or vessel called the "Belle," lying in the river Hooghley, at Bengal, being then bound for London, for the carriage of goods and merchandise, to be shipped on board, for freight to be therefor paid to the defendants; that thereupon the defendants gave to Messrs. Biale, Koch, & Co., being merchants and traders then in credit and carrying on business in Calcutta, a bill of lading, signed by the master of the said ship, who was then and there the [666] servant and agent of the defendants in that behalf, and purporting to state, in the name of the said master, that Biale, Koch, & Co. had shipped, in good order, in the said ship, twelve bales of silk, marked and numbered as in the margin of the said bill of lading, and that the same were to be delivered in good condition, &c., unto order or assigns, to wit, to the order of Biale, Koch, & Co., he or they paying freight at 51. per ton, &c.; that, in the 264 GEANT V. NORWAY 10 C. B. 667. margin of the said bill of lading were certain marks and numbers, purporting to relate to the said goods; that, by the custom of merchants, bills of lading are commonly pledged and deposited by the holders with others as a security for the payment of money, as the defendants well knew; that the defendants, by such delivery of the said bill of lading, enabled Biale, Koch, & Co. to deposit the, said bill of lading with other persons as a security for the payment of money, and that, in fact, Biale, Koch, & Co. afterwards indorsed the said bill of lading to, and deposited the same with, the plaintiffs as a security for the payment of a large sum of money, to wit, the sum of 16841., being the amount of an unpaid bill of exchange of which the plaintiffs, at the request of Biale, Koch, & Co., then became and were the indorsees and bona fide holders for value, and of which Biale, Koch, & Co. were the drawers, and which bill of exchange, bearing date the 18th of April, 1846, was by them the said Biale, Koch, & Co. drawn upon Messrs. Johnson, Cole, & Co., London, and whereby they requested the drawees, at ten months' date, to pay to them the said drawers, or order, the said sum of 16841., and to place the same, with or without advice, to account of shipments of silk per " Belle," and rice per "Castle Eden," and the said Biale, Koch, & Co. then indorsed the said bill of exchange to the plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs were induced by Biale, Koch, & Co. to [667] become the indorsees and holders of the said bill of exchange, and to give value for the same to the amount of 16841., by the deposit of the said bill of lading, but for which they would not have given value nor become indorsees and holders thereof; that the plaintiffs, confiding in the truth of the said bill of lading, and believing, by reason of its contents, that the goods therein described had been and were shipped on board the said ship, deliverable under the said bill of lading to the order of Biale, Koch, & Co., consented to, and did, give value for the said bill of exchange; that, if true, the goods mentioned in the bill of lading would have been, according to the custom of merchants, deliverable to the plaintiffs as holders thereof; that the said ship sailed, and arrived in London on, &c., but did not convey or deliver the said supposed goods; that the said goods in the said bill of lading mentioned never were shipped in and upon the said ship; that the said bill of exchange was afterwards, when the same became due, duly presented for payment to the drawees, and dishonoured, and that the plaintiffs were still holders thereof for value, and unable to procure payment of the said bill of exchange, and the money for securing the payment of which the said bill of lading was so deposited, still remained due, and the plaintiffs were unable to procure payment thereof; and that, by reason of the premises, and of the misconduct of the defendants as aforesaid, the plaintiffs had lost and been deprived of the said money for the securing the payment of which the said bill of lading was so deposited, to wit, the said sum of 16841. in the said bill of exchange mentioned,-to the plaintiffs' damage, &c. Pleas,-first, not guilty,-secondly, that the said ship was not bound, as in the declaration mentioned, for the carriage of goods, &c., for freight, &c. as in the decla-[668]-ration mentioned,-thirdly, that the said bill of lading was not signed by the master of the said ship, in manner and form as in the declaration mentioned,- fourthly, that the said master was not the servant or agent of the defendants in that behalf, in manner and form as in the declaration mentioned,-fifthly, that the defendants did not enable the said persons in the declaration mentioned, to deposit the said bill of lading with other persons as a security for the payment of money, in manner and form as in the declaration alleged,-sixthly, that the defendants did not deliver to the said persons in the declaration mentioned the said bill of lading therein mentioned, in manner and form as in the declaration alleged. Upon these pleas the plaintiffs joined issue. At the trial, before Wilde, C. J., at the sittings at Guildhall after Trinity term, 1849, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs on the issues joined upon the second and third pleas : and, as to the residue of the issues, a special verdict was found, stating in substance as follows:- The plaintiffs, during the year 1846, and thence hitherto, had carried on business as merchants, at Calcutta, under the firm of Gladstone & Co. During the month of April, 1846, the defendants were possessed of, and owners of, the "Belle," then lying in the river Hooghley, at Calcutta, bound for London, by charter-party for the conveyance of goods for freight; Henry Tillman being the master appointed by the defendants. On the 17th of April, in that year, Henry Tillman, being such master, and pro- IOC. B. 669. GBANT .V. NORWAY 265 fessing to act as such, signed and delivered to Biale, Koch, & Co., in the declaration mentioned, being merchants and traders then in credit and carrying on business in Calcutta, a bill of- lading, [669] in the usual form, as follows, and numbered in the margin:- " Shipped, by the grace of God, in good order and well conditioned, upon the good ship ' Belle,' whereof is master for this present voyage Henry Tillman, and now riding at anchor in the Hooghley, and bound for London, twelve bales of silk, numbered as in the margin, to be delivered in the like good order at London, the act of God, the Queen's enemies, &c., excepted, unto order or assigns, he or they paying freight 51. per ton, &c. In witness whereof the said master hath affirmed to three bills of lading, all of this tenor and date, the one of which being accomplished, the other two to stand void. Dated this 17th day of April, 1846. Contents unknown." (Signed) "H. tillman." The bill of lading was indorsed " Biale, Koch, & Co." By the custom of merchants, bills of lading are commonly pledged and deposited by the holders with others as a security for the payment of money. By such delivery of the said bill of lading, Biale, Koch, & Co. were enabled to pledge and deposit the said bill of lading with other persons as a security for the payment of money: and, on the 18th of April, 1846, the plaintiffs purchased from Biale, Koch, & Co., who then indorsed and delivered to the plaintiffs for full value, the bill of exchange for 16841. in the declaration mentioned, upon the terms that the payment of the amount of the bill of exchange should be secured by the deposit of the said bill of lading, -which they also indorsed to the plaintiffs, and deposited with them for that purpose. The bill of exchange was drawn by Biale, Koch, & Co., and requested the drawees to pay 16841. at ten months, to the drawers, or order, and to place the same, with or [670] without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blue Nile Co Ltd v Emery Customs Brokers (S) Pte Ltd
... ... that the defendants were liable for the fraud of their servant, Grant v Norway (1851) 10 CB 665 notwithstanding. They chose not to do so ... ...
-
The "Maritime Prudence"
...by the ship but by an act totally unconnected with the ship, namely, non-delivery of cargo.The defendants relied on Grant v Norway (1851) 10 CB 665, where at p 688 Jervis CJ said: It is then, usual, in the management of a ship carrying goods on freight, for the master to give a bill of ladi......
- V/O Rasnoimport v Guthrie & Company Ltd
-
Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Pte Ltd ('The Starsin') [QBD (Comm)]
...Whitechurch Ltd v CavanaghELR[1902] AC 117 at p. 137 are directly in point: “It seems to me extremely doubtful whether Grant v Norway [10 C.B. 665] can be held, or has ever been held, to represent the general law, or to do more than determine the law about ship-masters and bills of lading; ......
-
HOLDER OF A BILL OF LADING
...note 13, at 547. 29 BLA, as seen in s. 5(2)(c). 30 See the illustration given by the Law Commissioners, supra, note 25, p. 18. 31 (1851) 10 C.B. 665. 32 Section 3 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, Cap. 33, has been amended as of 16th March 1995 to, inter alia, emphasise that the Hague-Vi......
-
THE UNDEAD — GRANT V NORWAY REVISITED
...judge aptly summed up the issue thus: It is not disputed that these paras of the defence support a defence founded on Grant v. Norway(1851) 10 CB 665; 138 ER 263. Accordingly, it is not disputed that should I decide that Grant v. Norway is not applicable to the facts of this case or that Gr......