Holl v Griffin and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 November 1833 |
| Date | 05 November 1833 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 131 E.R. 898
IN THE COURT OF COMMOM PLEAS
[246] holl v. geiffin and another. Nov. 5, 1833. [S. C. 3 Moo. & Sc. 732; 3 L. J. C. P. 17.] W., possessed of a Stockton wharfinger's receipt for goods about to be shipped to London, assigned the receipt to Plaintiff, together with an order on Defendant, a London wharfinger, to deliver the goods to Plaintiff: Defendant, on sight of the order before the goods arrived, promised to deliver them to Plaintiff on their arrival: -Held, that Plaintiff might maintain trover against him, on his refusal to deliver after arrival. Trover. Wilson was the owner of certain goods in the bands of wharfingers at Stockton-upon-Tees, which were about to be shipped for London. Wilson, upon an advance of money by the Plaintiff, handed over to him the Stockton wharfinger's (d)' See De La Chaumette v. Bank of England, 9 B. & C. 208, 2 B. & Adol. 385, Down v. Hailing, 4 B. & C. 330. 10BING. 247. HOLL V. GRIFFIN 899 receipt for these goods, together with the invoice; and at the same time addressed an order to the Defendants, wharfingers at Beale's Wharf, London, to deliver the goods, upon their arrival, to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff called at Beale's Wharf, apprized the Defendants of his claim to the goods, and left with them the Stockton wharfinger's receipt; The Defendants' clerk said, that the vessel by which the goods were to be conveyed had not arrived, but that when it arrived the goods should be delivered to the Plaintiff. Upon this evidence a verdict was found for the Plaintiff, to the amount of the value of the goods. Taddy Serjt. obtained a rule nisi to set aside this verdict,-on the ground that, under these circumstances, the action should have been conceived in assumpsit instead of trover;-or to reduce it, to the amount of the money advanced to Wilson by the Plaintiff. Wilde Serjt. was beginning to shew cause, when the Court called on Taddy to support his rule. The Defendants might be liable in assumpsit on their promise to the Plaintiff to deliver the goods, but the Plaintiff was not in a condition to maintain trover. If the Defendants had given a [247] receipt for the goods, that might have estopped them from contesting the Plaintiff's title in an action of trover : but the receipt was given by the Stockton wharfingers; and though it might operate as an estoppel against them, the delivery of it to the Plaintiff would not invest him with the property in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swanwick and Another against Sothern and Others
...(2 Camp. 243), Lucas v. Dorrien (7 Taunt. 278), Barton v. Boddingtm (1 Car. & P. 207), Gosling v. Birnie (7 Bing. 339), Holl v. Griffin (10 Bing. 246); which cases agree, in principle, with Dixon v. Hamond (2 B. & Aid. 310), and Hawes v. Watson (2 B. & C. 540). Even if this had been a quest......
-
Bryans and Others v Nix
...are shipped for his account, this being tacitly understood." That must mean that the receipt is the evidence of title. In Holl v. Griffin (10 Bing. 246 ; 3 M.: & Scott, 732), it [784] was held that the transfer of a wharfinger's receipt operated as a transfer of the property: and Tindal, C.......