London Joint Stock Bank Ltd v British Amsterdam Maritime Agency Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 1910 |
| Date | 20 December 1910 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
King's Bench Division
Channell, J.
London Joint Stock Bank Limited v. British Amsterdam Maritime Agency Limited
Bristol and West of England Bank v. The Midland RailwayDID=ASPMELR 7 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 69 65 L. T. Rep. 234 (1891) 2 Q. B. 653
Chinnery v. ViallENR 5 H. & N. 288
Bill of lading — Wrongful delivery to consignee — Indorsement of bill of lading by consignee to bank
MARITIME LAW CASES. 571 App.] LONDON JOINT STOCK BANK LIM. v. BRITISH AMSTERDAM MARITIME AGENCY LIM. [K.B HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. KING'S BENOH DIVISION. Tuesday, Dee. 20,1910. (Before Channell, J.) London Joint Stock Bask Limited v. British Amsterdam Maritime Agency Limited. (a) Bill of lading-Wrongful delivery to consignee -Indortement of bill of lading by consignee to bank Title subsequently accruing-Trover. A contract provided for the sale of certain oil to P. and Co. on the terms of cash against documents, P. and Co.'s name being inserted in the bill of lading at their request as shippers, and the bill of lading provided for the oil to be delivered to them or to their order. The draft attached to the bill of lading vat then told by the tellers to certain bill broken, who aub"e-quently told the tame on exchange to a bank at Amsterdam. On the arrival of the oil in London, P. and Co. obtained from the defendant, who were the agents of the owners of the ship carrying if, delivery of the oil, without delivery of the bill of lading, on an indemnity being given by (a) Reported LEONARD C. THOMAS, Esq. Barrister- at- Law. 572 MARITIME LAW CASES. K.B.] LONDON JOINT STOCK BANK LIM. v. BRITISH AMSTERDAM MARITIME AGENCY LIM. [K.B. P. and Co. P. and Co. then approached the plaintiffs, who as London correspondents of the Amsterdam bank, were holding the bill of lading as against the draft, and arranged with, them to advance the money to take up the draft on condition that the plaintiffs should retain the bill of lading, which P. and Co. thereupon indorsed. In an action for trover: Held, that the plaintiffs were entitled to succeed as although P. and Co. were not entitled, to the possessior. of the bill of lading, the plaintiffs took over the rights of the Amsterdam bank on crediting them with the amount of the drift, which rights were perfected by the indorsement by P. and Co. of the bill of lading. Commercial Court. Action tried by Channell, J. sitting without a jury. The plaintiffs claimed 2581. 8s. l0d. damages for wrongful conversion and non-delivery of linseed oil, which they alleged was their property. By their defence the defendants denied that the plaintiffs had or had ever acquired any property in the linseed oil. The facts of the case were as follows: The oil in question was shipped by Messrs. J. E. de Bear and Zoon on the steamship Maastroom, for carriage from Amsterdam to London, under bill of lading dated the 29th April 1910, given in favour of P. H. Palmer and Co., their order or assigns, by the Holland Steamship Company of Amsterdam, who were the owners of the vessel. The said goods were sold subject to payment against documents, and it was arranged that the vendors should retain possession of the bill of lading until the draft war??id. When the vessel arrived in London Messrs. Palmer approached the defendants, who were the London agents of the shipping company, and informed them that although they had not got the bill of lading, yet if they would deliver the goods they (Messrs. Palmer) would give an iudemnity, and on these terms delivery of the goods was duly given. After Messrs. Palmer had thus obtained possession of the oil, they went to the plaintiffs, who, as correspondents of the foreign bank, were holding the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The “Jag Shakti”
...Claridge v South Staffordshire Tramway Co [1892] 1 QB 422 (refd) London Joint Stock Bank Ltd v British Amsterdam Maritime Agency Ltd [1910] 16 Com Cas 102 (distd) Sewell v Burdick (1884) 10 App Cas 74 (folld) Swire v Leach (1865) 18 CB NS 479; 144 ER 531 (folld) Winkfield, The [1902] P 42 (......
-
Leigh and Sillavan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping Company Ltd (Aliakmon)
... ... Justice, and 2 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London, W.C.2) ... MR. ANTHONY CLARKE, ... of exchange to be endorsed by the buyers' bank in exchange for a bill of lading. The steel was ... v. Chelsea Maritime Ltd. (The "Irene's Success") [1981] 2 Lloyd's ... that liability rested upon the concept of a joint venture ... 60 Leaving ... ).The more recent cases, however, such as British Celanese v. A.H. Hunt Ltd. [1969] 1 Weekly Law ... ...
-
Enichem Anic S.p.A. v Ampelos Shipping Company Ltd (Delfini)
...apply, whatever construction was placed upon it. Mr. Eder relied upon a passage in the judgment of Channell J. in London Joint Stock Bank v. British Amsterdam Maritime Agency [1911] 16 Comm. Cas. 102 at p. 105. In this case the shipper delivered oil to the receiver without getting a bill of......
-
P & O Nedlloyd BV v Utaniko Ltd; Dampskibsselskabet AF, 1912 Aktieselskab v East West Corporation [QBD (Comm)]
...Ll Rep 1. Libyan Arab Foreign Bank v Bankers Trust CoELR[1989] QB 728. London Joint Stock Bank v British Amsterdam Maritime AgencyUNK(1910) 16 Com Cas 102. Maynegrain Pty Ltd v Compafina Bank[1982] 2 NSWLR 141; (1984) 58 ALJR 389 MB Pyramid Sound NV v Briese Schiffahrts GmbH & Co KG MS Sina......