Pease v Gloahec; The "Marie Joseph"
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 August 1866 |
| Date | 04 August 1866 |
| Court | High Court of Admiralty |
English Reports Citation: 167 E.R. 437
HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY
be. *li. the "ma.kee joseph" 437 [449] in the privy council Pietent - The Lord Chancellor. Lord Justice Knight Bruce Lord Justice Turner Sir John T. Coleridge. Sir Edward Vaughan Williams the " marie joseph." (a) August 4, 1866. - Negotiability of bills of lading - Stoppage ui transitu - Effect of fraud - Deposit of bills of lading with banker " for advances past or future.'' - If the vendee of goods having received from the vendor an endorsed bill of lading making the goods deliverable to order or assigns, endorses and delivers it to a banker as a security for past and future advances, the banker's claim upon the goods for all such advances will prevail against a claim of the unpaid vendor to stop the goods in tran&itu. The vendee of goods having received from the vendor an endorsed bill of lading making the goods deliverable to order or assigns, and having given an acceptance for the price, returned the bill of lading to the vendor, to hold " as security against the acceptance until the goods are sold or the vessel arrives," and afterwards by fraudulent representation again obtained possession of the bill of lading from the vendor, and negotiated it by endorsement and delivery to a third person, who took without notice of the fraud Held, reversing the judgment of the Admiralty Court, that the vendee's fraud did not vitiate his power to pass a good title by endorsement, and that the right of such third person under the endorsement should prevail against the claim of the unpaid vendor to stop the goods in transitu The vendor's agent, Stencker, delivered to the vendees, a firm consisting of two persons called Scarborough & Tadman, a bill of lading for linseed cake endorsed by the vendors, making the goods deliverable to order or assigns, and took an acceptance for the price. Afterwards, at the same interview, the vendees returned the bill of lading to Stericker, to hold " as security against the acceptance, until the cakes are sold or the vessel arrives " Subsequently Tadman, by falsely representing to Stencker that he had sold the goods to one Croysdale, reobtamed from him possession of the bill of lading, and then endorsed it in the name of his firm to a bank as security for past or future advances. The bank took without notice of the fraud. They afterwards advanced to the firm a sum less than the value of the linseed cakes ; but the total amount of their debt was greater. Held, reversing the judgment of the Court of Admiralty, that Tadman's fraud did not vitiate his power to pass a good title to the bill of lading, and that the claim of the bank upon the goods (for the whole of their debt) prevailed over the claim of the unpaid vendor to stop in transitu Gurney v Behrend (3 E & B 622) , Kingsford v Merry (11 Exch. 577 ; 1 H. & N 503), considered. See also Coxe v Harden (4 East 211) [S. C. L. E. 1 P. C 219 , 3 Moore, P. C. (N. S.) 556 , 16 E R 210, 35 L J. P. C. 66 ; 12 Jur (N. S ) 677 , 15 L T. 6 ; 15 W R 201. Not applied, Bateman v. Green, 1867, Ir. R. 2 C L 166 Referred to, The " Argentina," 1867, L. R. 1 Ad. & Ecc. 376 Discussed, Ex parte Oakes, In re Overend, Gutney & Co., 1867, L. R. 3 Eq. 629 ; affirmed, L R. 2 H. L. 325 ] This was an action brought in the Admiralty Court under the 6th section of the statute 24 Viet. c. 10, by Messrs. Peases, Hoare & Pease, bankers at Hull, as endorsees of a [450] bill of lading for certain linseed cake, against the foreign ship " Marie Joseph," for breach of duty by the master in not delivering the cake to them. The action was defended by the master, who had delivered the cake under an indemnity to Messrs Maxwell & Dreossi, the original shippers, who had claimed to stop in transitu. The facts proved at the trial were thus stated by Dr Lushington in his judgment : Early in the month of February 1864 Walter Stericker, of Kingston-upon-Hull, as agent for Messrs. Maxwell & Dreossi of Bordeaux in France, agreed with Messrs. Scarborough & Tadman of Kingston-upon-Hull for the sale to them of sixty tons of linseed cake, they...
To continue reading
Request your trial