Leycester and Others v Lockwood
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 May 1814 |
| Date | 21 May 1814 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 128 E.R. 819
Common Pleas Division
proceeds to be paid to the Plaintiff." Williams and Wilson put the goods, on arrival, into the hands of the Defendants, who were brokers, for the purpose of sale; they sold them and received the proceeds, amounting to 18121. 14s. Upon the trial of the cause before Mansfield C. J. at the sittings after Michaelmas term 1813, the Defendants contended that they bad a lien for advances made to Williams and Wilson upon these particular goods, but failed, in the opinion of the Chief Justice, to establish a specific pledge on them ; they also claimed to deduct the charges of freight, insurance, commission on sale, custom-house duties, and interest on the advances made for those purposes, proving that such was their course of dealing with Williams and Wilson. Mansfield C. J. reserved to them liberty to move upon these grounds to reduce the verdict, which passed for the Plaintiffs for the entire proceeds, to 12741., by the deduction of these charges. Accordingly Shepherd, Solicitor-General, in Hilary term 1814, obtained a rule nisi, stating that as the goods were consigned to Williams and Wilson, and the Plaintiff was to receive only the net proceeds, the Defendants in calculating the net proceeds were entitled to the same allowances, as against the Plaintiff, as they were against Williams and Wilson, who, having the property in the goods, had the legal right of arranging with the Defendants the terms on which the Defendants should conduct the business. [586] Lens, Serjt., now shewed cause against this rule. He contended the Defendants were not entitled to deduct freight, because the ship-owner might again recover the freight from the Plaintiff. Neither were they entitled to the charges of insurance; for the Plaintiff had himself insured his own interest. They had no right to commission ; for he urged that the Defendants had wrongfully sold the goods, and never were agents for the Plaintiff. As to interest on the advances, the Plaintiff was not bound by the course of dealing that Williams and Wilson might adopt, and it was not an allowance that became due without special contract. Shepherd, in support of his rule. The fallacy is, that the Plaintiff argues as if he were consignee, which he is not : but Williams and Wilson are. They have the legal property in the sugars, and are only to distribute the net proceeds. GIBBS C. J. You need not trouble yourself further. The question is, for whom did the Defendant sell these goods, by whom were they employed, and to whom are they accountable for the proceeds? They were employed by Williams and Wilson : was that a rightful or wrongful employment? For if wrongful, the Plaintiff may say, I disavow this sale; I come in and claim the gross proceeds of my property. But Morton had a right to dispose of these sugars, and had not, so far as appears, divested himself of the right of directing how they should be applied. He writes to Williams and Wilson and tells them the net proceeds are to be applied to the Plaintiff's use. What are the net proceeds? The consignees were to insure : the cargo was then on the seas: that entitles them to the charges of insurance. They were to sell the goods : that entitles them to the charge of commission. As to the interest of the sums [587] they advanced for duties, and which is charged from the time of paying them, they are entitled to interest from the Plaintiff, in like manner as Williams and Wilson would have charged it to Morton. The only remaining question is as to the freight. While the property remained in the hands of the Defendants, so much as it produced after payment of the freight would be for the use of Morton, subject to any lien that the Defendants may have on it. That, then, can be nothing but what remains after payment of freight; and the net proceeds are what remains after the freight, insurance, commission, and interest on the sums paid for getting the goods out of the custom...
To continue reading
Request your trial