Lickbarrow and Another against Mason and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 July 1794 |
| Date | 02 July 1794 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 380
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
1 B. & P. 565. 4 East, 211. 4 Taunt. 684.
See S. C. 2 T. R. 63; 100 E. R. 35 (with note).
LlGKBAEEOW and ANOTHEE against mason and OiHEES. Wednesday, July 2d, 1794,, Bills of lading are transferable and negotiable by the custom of merchants. And though a consignor may in general stop goods in transitu before they reach the consignee, yet he cannot if the consignee have previously indorsed over tha bill of lading to a third person, for a valuable consideration and without fraud. [IB. & P. 565. 4 East, 211. 4 Taunt. 684.] . [See S. C. 2 T. K. 63; 100 E. E. 35 (with note).] Trover for a cargo of corn. This case came before the Court the first time in Michaelmas term 28 Geo. 3, upon a demurrer to evidence (of, when judgment was given for the plaintiffs. That judgment was reversed in the Exchequer Chamber on the llth February 1790 (J)2; and on the record being carried into the House of Lords, their Lordships awarded a venire de novo in Trinity term 33 G-eo. 3(c). At the second trial a special verdict was found, in substance as follows : In July 1786, James Freeman, a merchant resident at Rotterdam in Holland, sent an order to Turing and Son, traders at Middleburg in Zealand, to purchase for him the cargo in question, and to hire a vessel on his account to carry the same from thence to Liverpool. Turing and son having received the order on the 22d, July 1786, purchased the cargo accordingly and made out an invoice thereof, and of the charges and commission to the amount altogether of 5464 guilders and upwards, in which invoice the goods are stated to have been shipped " per order and for account and risk of Mr. J. Freeman, (J)1 Hulmev. Tenant; vide 1 Bro. Ch. Cas. 16. (a)1 Vide Clayton v. Adams, post, 6 vol. 604. " (a)2 Ante, 2 vol. 63. (t Y 1 H. Bkc.,357. '() 2 H. Bl. 211. 5 I.E. 684. LICKBARR.OW V. MASON 381 &c. deliverable to order." The invoice was indorsed "I. Turing and Son, 22d July 1786." The cargo was purchased by Turing and Son as agents for and by the order and directions and on account of Freeman, and not on their own account. Turing and Son paid for the cargo at the rate mentioned in the invoice, and also paid the expenees mentioned therein, and charged Freeman with commission for buying. The goods were shipped at Mid-[684]-dleburg on the said 22d July^ for the account and on the risk of Freeman on board the " Endeavour" for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Borealis AB v Stargas Ltd
...311. Kum v Wah Tat Bank [1971] 1 LI Rep 439. Leigh and Sillavan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping Co LtdELR [1986] 1 AC 785. Lickbarrow v MasonENR (1794) 5 TR 683; 101 ER 380. Margarine Union GmbH v Cambay Prince SS Co LtdELR [1969] 1 QB 219. Sanders v MacleanELR (1883) 11 QBD 327. Sanders v Vanzelle......
-
Enichem Anic S.p.A. v Ampelos Shipping Company Ltd (Delfini)
...27 The law and custom 28 The custom of merchants to which the 1855 Act refers in its preamble was described by the special jury in Lickbarrow v. Mason [1794] 5 Term Reports 683 at p. 685:— "And then the jury found that, by the custom of merchants, bills of lading, expressing goods or mercha......
-
Forth and Others v Stanton, Widow
...to be transferable by indorsement, so as to vest the property in the assignee, and enable him to sue in his own name: as bills of lading, 5 T. R. 683, Lickbarrow v. Mason, [Mood. & M. 511, Renteria v. Eliding,] and West India dock warrants, 1 B. Moore, 12, Zwinger v. Samuda. 1 Taunt. "265, ......
-
Chan Cheng Kum v Wah Tat Bank Ltd
...position of a new carrier who came into the trade.Certainly there have not been many cases since the famous case of Lickbarrow v Mason (1794) 5 TR 683; 101 ER 380 (which declared that by the custom of merchants bills of lading were negotiable and transferable) in which custom had created a ......
-
The Dematerialisation of the Bill of Lading
...in Article 1, “Scope of Application”: “These Rules shall apply whenever parties so agree”. 63 Lickbarrow v Mason (1794) 5 Term Rep 683, 101 ER 380 64 Section 3 states: Every consignee of goods named in a bill of lading, and every indorsee of a bill of lading to whom property in the goods he......