Nicholls v Le Feuvre
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 June 1835 |
| Date | 02 June 1835 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 132 E.R. 32
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 2 Scott 146; 1 Hodges, 255; 4 L. J. C. P. 281: at Nisi Prius, 7 Car. & P. 91.
nicholls v. le feuvbe. June 2, 1835. [S. C. 2 Scott, 146 ; 1 Hodges, 255; 4 L. J. C. P. 281: at Nisi Prius, 7 Car. & P. 91.] C. purchased goods of Plaintiff in London, and ordered them to be forwarded to Guernsey, by the care of Defendant, C.'s shipping agent at Southampton. Defen1 dant took the goods from the warehouse of a London and Southampton waggoner, by whom they had been brought from London, paid the waggoner's charges, and shipped the goods for Guernsey in Defendant's name. C., who was insolvent, wrote at the request of Plaintiff to Defendant to reland the goods without saying why : Defendant's clerk, in his master's absence, obtained a custom-house order for that purpose, but before he had relanded the goods, the vendor of other goods sold to C., and shipped in the same vessel, although a stranger to and without authority from the Plaintiff, ordered Defendant's clerk to stop the goods sold by Plaintiff to C.; when Defendant's clerk promised that Defendant should hold them for the owner. -:Held, that Defendant's having taken these goods from the waggoner, and having paid the waggoner's charges and shipped the goods, was not such a determination of the transitus to Guernsey as to authorise Defendant to hold the goods in assertion of a lien for a general balance due to him from C. Trover. On the 9th of May 1834, Le Couteur, who carried on business in Guernsey, purchased of the Plaintiff in London several bales of goods, which he directed to be 2BING.(N.C.).82. NICHOLLS V. LE FETJVBE 33 forwarded to Guernsey, addressed to "Le Couteur, Guernsey, care of Le Feuvre, Southampton." The Plaintiff forwarded the goods accordingly on the same day, by Smith, a Southampton waggoner, and Le Couteur addressed a letter to the Defendant requesting him to ship the goods for Guernsey when the next parcel arrived. The Defendant had for some years acted as Le Couteur's shipping agent in Southampton under a written [82] authority "to take charge of and forward all goods that might arrive in Southampton for Le Couteur, whether addressed to the care of Le Feuvre or any other person." The goods in question arrived at Smith's waggon office in Southampton on the 10th, and another parcel for Le Couteur arriving on the 14th of May, the Defendant on that day took the whole out of the waggon office and shipped them for Guernsey in his own name. The waggoner's charge was paid by the Defendant. On the same day Le Couteur, who was insolvent when he bought the goods, at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitehead and Others, Assignees of Richard Benbow, a Bankrupt v Anderson and Others
...July, it can only be regarded as a subsequent ratification of the defendant's act, which is not sufficient. In Nicholls v. Le Feuvre (2 Bing. N. C. 81), the Court appeared to doubt whether a stoppage in transitu, made by an unauthorized party, could afterwards be ratified. See also Siffkin ......