Rugg and Others against Minett and Others

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date09 May 1809
Date09 May 1809
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 103 E.R. 985

IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

Rugg and Others against Minett and Others

Referred to, Busk v. Davis, 1814, 2 M. & S. 405. Principle applied, Acraman v. Morrice, 1849, 19 L. J. C. P. 58. Considered, Gilmour v. Supple, 1858, 11 Moo. P. C. 568. Referred to, Campbell v. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, 1863, 14 C. B. (N. S.) 414; Furley v. Bates, 1863, 33 L. J. Ex. 46; Taylor v. Caldwell, 1863, 3 B. & S. 837; Anderson v. Morice, 1876, 1 App. Cas. 749; Elphick v. Barnes, 1880, 5 C. P. D. 324.

11 EAST, 211. HUGO V. MINETT 985 rugg and others against minett and others. Tuesday, May 9th, 1809. Where turpentine in casks was sold by auction at so much per cwt. and the casks were to be taken at a certain marked quantity, except the two last, out of which the seller was to fill up the rest before they were delivered to the purchasers; on which account the two last casks were to be sold at uncertain quantities; and a deposit was to be paid by the buyers at the time of the sale, and the remainder within 30 days on the goods being delivered; and the buyers had the option of keeping the goods in the warehouse at the charge of the sellers for those 30 days, after which they were to pay the rent; and the buyers having employed the warehouseman of the seller as their agent, he filled up some of the casks out of the two last, but left the bungs out in order to enable the Custom-House officer to gauge them; but before he could fill up the rest a fire consumed the whole in the warehouse within the 30 days : Held that the property passed to the buyers in all the casks which were filled up, because nothing further remained to be done to them by the seller; for it was the business of the buyers to get them gauged, without which they could not have been removed ; and the act of the warehouseman in leaving them unbunged after filling them up, which was for the purpose of the gauging, must be taken to have been done as agent for the buyers, whose concern the gauging was. But the property in the casks not filled up remained in the seller, at whose risk they continued. [Referred to, Busk v. Davis, 1814, 2 M. & S. 405. Principle applied, Acraman v. Morrice, 1849, 19 L. J. C. P. 58. Considered, Gilrnour v. Supple, 1858, 11 Moo. P. C. 568. Referred to, Campbell v. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, 1863, 14 C. B. (N. S.) 414; Furky v. Bates, 1863, 33 L. J. Ex. 46; Taylor v. Caldwell, 1863, 3 B. & S. 837; Anderson v. Morice, 1876, 1 App. Gas. 749; Elphick v. Barnes, 1880, 5 C. P. D. 324.] In an action for money had and received by the defendants to the use of the plaintiffs, a verdict was found for the plaintiffs for 14151., subject to the opinion of the Court upon the following case. On the 28th of April 1808 the defendants, as prize agents to the commissioners for the care and disposal of Danish property, put up to public sale by auction, at Dover, the cargo of a Danish ship in lots, and the lots No. 28 to 54, inclusive [211] consisted of turpentine in casks. The quantity contained in each lot being marked on the catalogue thus-10 cwt. 3 qrs. 26 Ibs., the mode of bidding was this; each lot (except the two last, which were sold at uncertain quantities,) was to be taken at the weight at which it was marked, and the bidding was to be at so much per hundred weight on that quantity. The plaintiffs employed one Acres, the warehouseman of the defendants, to bid for them, and all the lots of turpentine (with the exception of 3 lots, which were sold to other bidders) were knocked down to Acres so acting for the plaintiffs. No conditions of sale were distributed prior to the sale; but the auctioneer, before the bidding commenced, read aloud the following conditions : 1st. The highest bidder to be the buyer; but if any dispute should arise, the lot to be put up again. 2d. 251. per...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 15 Junio 1942
    ...could not be fulfilled. (See the notes in Bullen and Leake, 9th edition, page 263.) In this connection the decision in ( Rugg v. Minett 11 East 210) is instructive. There the plaintiff had bought at auction a number of casks of oil; the contents of each cask were to be made up after the auc......
  • Friends' Provident Life Office (A Firm) v Hillier Parker May & Rowden; Estates & General Plc and Others, third parties
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 3 Abril 1995
    ...and, therefore, was paid by Friends' Provident for no consideration if not due as part of those costs. As to severability, he cited: Rugg v. Minet 11 East 210; Fibrosa v. Fairbairn [1943] AC 32, per Lord Wright at 64–65; Westdeutsche Landesbank v. Islington LBC, CA, [1994] 1 WLR 938, per D......
  • Wilbraham v Snow
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 1 Enero 1845
    ...v. Davis. 1 Marsh. 252, S. C. 4 Camp. 237, Withers v. Lys. 1 Holt, 18, S. C. 6 East, 614, Hanson v. Meyer. 2 Camp. 240, Zagury v. Furnell. 11 East, 210, Rugg v. Minett. See also 4 Taunt. 644, Austen v. Craven. 1 Taunt. 31S, MucMow v. Mangles. [5 B. & C. 857, Simmons v. Swift. 8 D. & R. 693,......
  • Guinness Mahon and Company Ltd v Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 19 Febrero 1998
    ...authority that such claim must fail because of the interest payments it had made by way of swap. After referring to ( Rugg v Minett 1809) ll East 210 Dillon LJ said: "I do not see why a similar process of severance should not be applied where what has happened, in a purely financial matter,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Defining the Obligation to Perform
    • United States
    • Contract Doctrine, Theory & Practice. Volume Two
    • 11 Marzo 2012
    ...deliver, which has thus become impossible. 12 [7] That this is the rule of the English law is established by the case of Rugg v. Minett (11 East, 210), where the article that perished before delivery was turpentine, and it was decided that the vendor was bound to refund the price of all tho......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT