T. F. Evans and G. H. Evans v A. Nichol and J. L. Nichol and J. L. Nichol
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 November 1841 |
| Date | 11 November 1841 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 133 E.R. 1286
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 4 Scott, N. R. 43; 11 L. J. C. P. 6; 5 Jur. 1110.
[614] T. F. evans and G. H. evans v. A. nichol and J. L. nichol. Nov. 11, 1841. [S. C. 4 Scott, N. K. 43; 11 L. J. C. P. 6; 5 Jur. 1110.] A. has a sufficient property in goods shipped by B. for the specific purpose of placing funds in the hands of A. to meet a bill drawn by B. upon A., to entitle A. to maintain trover, although no bill of lading is executed, and A. holds merely a receipt signed by the mate of the vessel, acknowledging the shipment of the goods,-to be delivered to A. Trover, for divers, to wit, fifty hogsheads of alkali; laying the value and the damages at 2501. Pleas ; not guilty ; and, plaintiffs not possessed, modo et forma. At the trial, before Tindal C. J., at the sittings at Guildhall after Michaelmas term last, the following facts appeared. The plaintiffs were chemists and drysalters, and also factors and brokers, carrying on trade in London. The defendants were the London agents of Nichol, Ludlow, and Co., who carried on business at Newcastle, as shipowners and wharfingers. The plaintiffs acted as factors and brokers for Anthony Clapham, an alkali manufacturer at Newcastle, who was in the habit of consigning alkali to the plaintiffs in London, for sale on his account, he being allowed to draw upon them to the extent of two thirds of the supposed value, but sometimes drawing, in fact, for the full amount. On the 2d of May 1840, the plaintiffs were under acceptances for Clapham beyond the amount for which Clapham was entitled to draw in respect of goods in their hands belonging to him, if not to the full value of those goods. On that day Clapham wrote to the plaintiffs that he had drawn on them at four months date for 5001., adding, " I hope to be able to ship twenty tons of soda and alkali the beginning of the ensuing week, per ' Hudgill.' I have not been able to send you any this week, in consequence 3MAN.&G.61S. EVANS V. NICHOL 1287 of the manufactory undergoing certain necessary repairs." On the same day the bill for 5001. was negotiated by Clapham. On the 4th [615] of May, upon the receipt of Clapham's letter of the 2d, the plaintiffs wrote to Clapham as follows: " We have now the pleasure to hand you account of sales for the past month, and hope the delay in forwarding them has given no inconvenience. We make the balance due to us 16711. 18s. 9d., which we trust will be found to be correct. We are sorry to have occasion to complain of the manner you are overdrawing your account. We cannot suffer this, as it is altogether irregular. We have occasionally accepted above the amount of two thirds of the value of your shipments, which was to have been the limit; but you are now drawing considerably above the value of the stock which we hold, either in the warehouse or by bills of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Borealis AB v Stargas Ltd
...[1914] AC 823. Effort Shipping Co Ltd v Linden Management SA [1998] CLC 374; [1998] AC 605. Evans v NicholUNK (1841) 3 M & G 614; 133 ER 1286. Fox v Nott (1861)ENR 6 Hurl & Nor 630; 158 ER 260. Glynn Mills v East and West India Dock CoELR (1880) 6 QBD 475. Gudermes, The [1993] 1 LI Rep 311.......
-
Chan Cheng Kum v Wah Tat Bank Ltd
...to the bank by virtue of which on the authority of Bryans v Nix (1839) 4 M & W 775; 150 ER 1634 and Evans v Nichol (1841) 3 M & G 614; 133 ER 1286 the bank could make good its claim.Their Lordships have concluded that the action should succeed upon the comparatively simple ground that in th......
- Wah Tat Bank Ltd, and Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Ltd v Chan Cheng Kum and Hua Siang Steamship Company Ltd; Tiang Seng Chan (Singapore) Ltd, and Others (Third Parties)
-
Chan Cheng Kum v Wah Tat Bank Ltd
...to the bank by virtue of which on the authority of Bryans v Nix (1839) 4 M & W 775; 150 ER 1634 and Evans v Nichol (1841) 3 M & G 614; 133 ER 1286 the bank could make good its claim.Their Lordships have concluded that the action should succeed upon the comparatively simple ground that in th......