Waring v Cox
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 June 1808 |
| Date | 13 June 1808 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 989
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Distinguished, Morison v. Gray, 1824, 2 Bing 260 Referred to, Johnston v. Orr Ewing, 1882, 7 App Cas. 219.
[369] Adjourned Sittings in London Monday, June 13, 1808. waring v. Cox. (The indorsement of a bill of lading, without consideration, does not transfer any property in the goods; and therefore the mere indorsement of a bill of lading by the consignee to an agent, to authorise him to stop the goods in Iran situ on account of his principal, will not enable such agent to maintain assumpsit or trover for the goods in his own name.) [Distinguished, Moiison v. Gtay, 1824, 2 Bmg 260 Referred to, Johnston v. Oir Swing, 1882, 7 App Gas. 219.] Assumpsit by the plaintiff as indrosee of a bill of lading, for 30 casks of butter shipped at Sligo by B. Everard on board the " Ceres," whereof the defendant was master, to be delivered at the port of London unto the shipper's order or to his assigns. The goods in question had been sold by Everard at Sligo, to Baggott and Co in London, to whom one bill of lading, indorsed by Everard, had been forwarded By virtue of this, Baggott and Co. got possession of the goods upon the ship's arrival at London. A few days after, the plaintiff demanded the goods from the people on board the ship, under another bill of lading which he had received from Everard, and upon which the present action was brought -The defendant's hand-writing to this last bill of lading, and Everard's indorsement, were now proved; but there was no evidence that the plaintiff had given any value for it. In fact he was merely Everard's agent, and employed by him to stop the goods in transitu, on account of the insolvency of Baggott and Co. [370] The counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the fact of the defendant having had notice before the ship's arrival at London, that the goods were to be delivered not to Baggott and Co. but to Waring, and contended therefore that the latter alone was to be considered as the assignee of the shipper, to whom the defendant had contracted to deliver them. Garrow for the defendant insisted, that at all events this action could not be maintained by the plaintiff, who, being an indorsee without value, had no property in the goods , and cited Coxe v Harden, 4 East, 211 (a) Park, contra, contended that the plaintiff, as indorsee of the bill of lading, must be taken to have the legal property of the goods Lord Ellenborough.-I am...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The "Nordic Freedom"
...was held not to confer a cause of action in conversion`. This argument was based on counsel`s reading of Waring v Cox [1808] 1 Camp 369; 170 ER 989. I do not think that this case is an authority for such a wide statement of the law. In that case the master of the vessel Ceres delivered carg......
-
P & O Nedlloyd BV v Utaniko Ltd; Dampskibsselskabet AF, 1912 Aktieselskab v East West Corporation [QBD (Comm)]
...1 Ll Rep 128. Walton (Grain and Shipping) Ltd v British Italian Trading CoUNK[1959] 1 Ll Rep 223. Waring v CoxENR(1808) 1 Camp 369; 170 ER 989. Western Digital Corp v British Airways plc[2000] CLC Shipping Carriage of Goods Contract Tort Agency Liner services Bills of lading Combined transp......
-
Burgos v Nascimento; McKeand, Claimant
...Division Eve, J. Burgos v. Nascimento; McKeand, Claimant Morison v. GrayENR 2 Bing. 260 Waring v. CoxENR 1 Camp. 369 Coxe v. HardenENR 4 East, 211 Sewell v. BurdickDID=ASPM 5 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 376 (1884) 52 L. T. Rep. 445 10 A. C. 74 Interpleader — Indorsement of bill of lading — Intention......
-
The "Nordic Freedom"
...was held not to confer a cause of action in conversion`. This argument was based on counsel`s reading of Waring v Cox [1808] 1 Camp 369; 170 ER 989. I do not think that this case is an authority for such a wide statement of the law. In that case the master of the vessel Ceres delivered carg......