Shiells and Thorne, Assignees of Goodwin, a Bankrupt, against Blackburne
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 February 1789 |
| Date | 12 February 1789 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 126 E.R. 94
IN THE COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
shiells and thorne, Assignees of Goodwin, a Bankrupt, against blackburne. Thursday, Feb. 12th, 1789. A. a general merchant undertakes voluntarily and without reward, to enter a parcel of goods of B. together with a parcel of his own of the same sort, at the Custom-House for exportation, but makes the entry under a wrong denomination, whereby both parcels ara seized. A. (having taken the same care of the goods of B. as of hia own, not having received any reward, and not being of a profession or employment which necessarily implied skill in what he had undertaken) is not liable to an action for the loss occasioned to B.(a). The material facts of this case were as follow. The defendant who was a general merchant, in London, having received orders from hia correspondent in Madeira to send thither a quantity of leather cut out for shoes and boots, employed Goodwin the bankrupt, who was a shoemaker, to execute the order. Goodwin accordingly prepared the leather for the defendant, packed it in a case for exportation, and at the same time prepared another parcel of the same kind of leather, on his own account, which he packed in a separate case, to be sent to Madeira on a venture, requesting the recommendation of the defendant to his correspondents in the sale of it. The two cases were sent to the defendant's house, with bills of parcels, and he, in order to save the expense and trouble of a separate entry at the Custom-House, voluntarily and without apy compensation, by agreement with Goodwin, made one entry of botp the cases, but did it under the denomination of wrought leather, instead of dressed leather, which it ought to have been. In consequence of this mistake in the entry, the two cases were seized, and this action was brought by the assignees of Goodwill to recover the value of the leather, which he had prepared to export on his own account. The declaration stated, that the bankrupt before his bankruptcy was possessed of a quantity of leather, which he [159] designed to export to the island of Madeira, for (a) [As to the degree of negligence which will render a gratuitous bailee liable, see Rooth v. Wilson, 1 B. & A. 59. Nelson v. Mackintosh, 1 Stark, N. P. C. 237. Dartnell v. Howard, 4 B. & C. 350, in which latter case it was held that a retainer to lay out a sum of money in the purchase of an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hedley Byrne & Company Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd
...of gross negligence if he omitted to do so". 51To a similar effect were the words of Lord Loughborough in the much earlier case of Shiells v. Blackburne (1789) 1 H.B1. 158 when at p. 162 he said: "If a man gratuitously undertakes to do a thing to the best of his skill, where his situation o......
-
Ministry of Housing and Local Government v Sharp
... ... charge: and that they could not claim against the purchasers for the sum of £1, 328 11s. 5 ... ...
- Bart v British West Indian Airways Ltd
-
Midland Bank Trust Company Ltd v Hett, Stubbs & Kemp
...their situation and employment necessarily imply a competent degree of knowledge in making such entries': see Shiels v. Blackburne (1789) 1 H.Bl. 158, 162, per Lord Loughborough, which was not referred to by Devlin J., in Heskell v. Continental Express Ltd. [1950] 1 All E.R. 1033, 1042, The......