Mirabita v Imperial Ottoman Bank
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 February 1878 |
| Date | 18 February 1878 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Court of Appeal
Bramwell, Brett, and Cotton, L.JJ.
Mirabita v. The Imperial Ottoman Bank
Wait v. BakerENR 2 Ex. 1
Ogg v. ShuterDID=ASPMUNK 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 77 33 L. T. Rep. N. S. 492 L. Rep. 1 C. P. Div. 47 45 L. J. 44, C. P.
Gabarron v. KreeftDID=ASPMENRUNK 8 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 36 33 L. T. Rep. N. S. 365 L. Rep. 10 Ex. 274 44 L.J. 238 Ex.
Ellershaw v. MagniacENR 6 Ex. 570
Turner v. The Trustees of Liverpool DocksENRUNK 6 Ex. 543 20 L. J. 393, Ex.
Shepherd v. HarrisonDID=ASPM 1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 66 24 L. T. Rep. N. S. 857 L. Rep. 5 H. of L. 116
Sale of goods Passing of property Unascertained goods deliverable to order
MARITIME LAW CASES. 591 CT. oF App.] MIRABITA v. THE IMPERIAL OTTOMAN BANK. [CT. oF. APP. SITTINGS AT WESTMINSTER. Reported by P. B. Hutchins, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, Jan. 17 and 22. and Feb. 18, 1878. (Before Bramwell, Brett, and Cotton, L.JJ.) Mirabita v. The Imperial Ottoman Bank. Sale of goods Passing of property Unascer- tained goods deliverable to order. P. shipped a cargo of umber on board a ship chartered for plaintiff. The bills of lading stated that the cargo was shipped by P., to be delivered "to order or assigns." P. drew a bill of exchange on plaintiff, and handed it to the vendor of the umber, who discounted it with defendan is, and handed them the bills of lading, to be given up to plaintiff on payment by him of the bill of exchange at maturity. Plaintiff refused to accept the bill of exchange without receiving the bills of lading. A new bill of exchange was substituted for the former bill, and forwarded to defendants' agents with directions to give up the bills of lading when it was paid. The ship and the bills of exchange arrived on the same day. Plaintiff did not then accept the bill, and the cargo was entered at the Custom-house in defendants' name. Plaintiff afterwards offered to pay the bill of exchange, and receive the bills of lading, and give a guarantee for the freight, but defendants refused, and sold the cargo. Held (affirming the judgment of the Exchequer Division, on a special case), that the property in the cargo had passed to plaintiff, and he was entitled to recover. Appeal from the Exchequer Division. The following special case was stated by an arbitrator The plaintiff is a merchant carrying on business at Malta and Constantinople. The defendants are a banking company, incorporated by a firman of the Saltan, and carrying on business at Con-stantinople, with agencies at London and Larnaca. On the 26th June 1873 a contract was made between the plaintiff and Phatsea and Papps, a 592 MARITIME LAW CASES. CT. OF App.] MIRABITA v, THE IMPERIAL OTTMAN BANK. [CT. OF App. firm at Laruaca, for certain umber to be sold to and shipped for the plaintiff by Phatsea and Pappa at Larnaca. On the 7th July 1873 the plaintiff wrote to Phatsea and Pappa, stating that he would Bend sihps on receiving advice of the quantity of umber ready for shipment, and also that the bills of lading must state that Phatsea and Pappa shipped the umber " by order and on account" of the plaintiff. On the 26th Aug. 1873 Phatsea and Pappa had 600 tons of umber ready for delivery and shipment under the contract, and they chartered, by order of the plaintiff, and for his account, a British ship, the Princess of Wales, then lying at Alexan-dria, to carry a cargo of such umber from Larnaca to London. The plaintiff approved of the charter-party. The Princess of Wales proceeded to Larnaca, where she took on board a cargo of 600 tons of umber. About the 9th Oct. the plaintiff sent 150l. to Phatsea and Pappa for ship's advances, of which sum 701. was paid to the master. On the 9th Oct. the roaster signed four bills of lading for the cargo, which stated the goods to be shipped by Phatsea and Pappa, and to be delivered " to order cr assigns." The bills of lading were given to Phatsea and Pappa. On the 10th Oct. the Princess of Wales sailed from Larnaca, and on the 14th Oct. Phatsea and Pappa informed the plaintiff by telegram that the vessel had left with 600 tons on the 10th inst.; that they would shortly receive bills of lading and draft at sixty days, and requesting them to insure the cargo. The plaintiff communicated with his son, P. Mirabita, trading in London as Mirabita Brothers, and through him effected an insurance on the cargo. Phatsea and Pappa drew a bill of exchange for 280 Turkish liras on the plaintiffs, and indorsed and handed it with the bills of lading to Corkji, from whom they had bought the umber which formed the cargo. Phatsea and Pappa had paid Corkji for the umber, and they handed Mux the bill of exchange by way of accommodation, to enable him to obtain an advance from the defen-. dants, and in anticipation of future supplies of umber. Corkji discounted the bill of exchange at the Larnaca agency of the defendants' bank, and with the. bill of exchange handed them the bills of lading, saying that they were to be sent to Constantinople, and given up to the plaintiff on payment by him of the bill of exchange at maturity. The Larnaca agency forwarded the bill of exchange and bills of lading to their bank at Constantinople, Pappa having come to Constantinople and handed to the plaintiff the charter-party and invoice of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Enichem Anic S.p.A. v Ampelos Shipping Company Ltd (Delfini)
...shipment the property only passed conditionally and that in accordance with the judgments of Bramwell L.J. and Cotton L.J. in Mirabita v. Imperial Ottoman Bank [1878] 3 Ex. D. 164 the property in the cargo would not pass until the bills of lading were presented. Mr. Rokison distinguished De......
- James v Commonwealth
- Smyth (Ross T.) & Company Ltd v T. D. Bailey, Son & Company
-
Ross T. Smyth and Company, Ltd v T. D. Bailey, Son and Company
...by the Court of Appeal in Ogg v. Shuter, 1 C.P.D. 47, a sale f.o.b. I should also refer to Mirabita v. Imperial Ottoman Bank, L.R. 3 Ex. D. 164, and the judgment of Cotton L.J. on which it is said section 19 is principally founded. Cotton L.J. at p. 172 said, "If however the vendor when shi......
-
Preliminary Sections
...(1927) All E.R. (Reprint) 355 145 Mekwunwe v. Director of Audit, Western Nigeria S.C. 364/65 255 Mirabita v. The Imperial Ottoman Bank (1878) 3 Ex. D. 164. 249 Mordi Okoye v. Commissioner of Police (1959) N.R.N.L.R. 93 257 Nicol v. Martyn (1799) 2 ESP. 726. 113 North-Western Transportation ......