網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

4. The said cheque was duly presented by and through Cheques.

Bearer of Messrs. X. & Co., bankers, for payment, and was dishonoured.

crossed 5. Notice was given to the defendant of the dishonour of the cheques

against said cheque.

drawer. 6. The same still remains unpaid. The plaintiff claims :

or note falls due on the day preceding Christmas Day, Good Friday, What days a thanksgiving day or fast day; and the 34 & 35 Vict. c. 17 provides for are the case of a bill falling due on a bank holiday. A Jew is not obliged to excluded forward notice on the day of a great Jewish festival. (Lindo v. Unsworth, from the 2 Camp. 602.) It is sufficient proof of a notice to show that it was sent computain a letter by the post, without proving that the letter was received. tion of (Saunderson v. Oridge, 2 H. Bl. 509 ; and it is no answer that delay did time. in fact take place in the post-office. (Woodcock v. Houldsworth, 16 M. & W.

Sufficient 124.) When the notice must be given on a particular day, it is enough that notice if the letter be put into the post at such an hour, that it would in the

of disusual course be delivered on that day. (Stocken v. Collin, 7 M. & W.

honour is 515.) As to excusing notice, see pp. 174, 175, ante. Payment.]--See Roscoe's Nisi Prius, 12th ed. 390, for cases as to what

posted. amounts to a good payment of a bill or note.

Voluntary discharge.)-As a general rule a principal debtor cannot be discharged after breach, except by a release under seal; but it has for a long time been held that an acceptor of a bill or a maker of a note can be discharged from liability by the express exoneration of the holder. (See Dangrcell v. Dunster, 1 Doug. 247; Farquhar v. Southey, M. & M. ìt; Harner v. Steele, 4 Exch. 1.) It is a question how far, if at all, this rule extends beyond the parties named-acceptors and makers; but the decision in Foster v. Dawber, 6 Exch. 839, L. J. 20 Ex. 385, is general ; and the law of foreign countries from which this rule is probably borrowed, extends it to indorsers and parties to bills generally.

Giring time to principal debtor.]—The acceptor of a bill of exchange is The effect regarded as the principal debtor, and the drawer and indorsers merely as of giving sureties; therefore any binding act by which the plaintiff agrees to give time for extra time for payment to the acceptor, will discharge the drawer and payment indorsers, and there is no difference between an accommodation acceptor to the acand an acceptor for value. There must however be a binding agreement ceptor of a founded on a good consideration on which an action would lie if broken bill or (Moss v. Hall, 5 Exch. 46); for mere forbearance to sue the acceptor ker of a is not equivalent to giving time. (Price v. Kirkham, 3 H. & C. 437 ; note. L. J. 34 Ex. 35.) Although there be a binding agreement to give time to the principal or to release him, yet if there is an express reservation of remedies against the surety, the surety is not discharged. (Bateson v. Gosling, L. R. 7 C. P. 9.)

Fraud.]-If the consideration for a bill can be shown to be vitiated by Between fraud, of which the defendant was ignorant when he gave the bill, and if immediate the defendant has derived no benefit from the contract, but has elected to parties repudiate it as soon as he knew of the fraud, he has a defence to an fraud action on the bill at the suit of the party to whom he gave it. (Mills v. vitiates a Oddy, 2 C. M. & R. 103.). As if by fraudulent representations a man bill. induces another to give him for a business more than it is worth, and

Aliter in takes a bill in payment, he cannot recover on the bill. (Archer v. Bam

the hands ford, 3 Stark. 175.) But where in the case supposed the bill is in the

of third hands not of the person guilty of the fraud, but of an innocent indorsee or holder for value who is plaintiff, the defendant has no answer

to the parties. action. (Robinson v. Reynolds, 2 Q. B. 196.)

Bill of Lading (a).
Action on a Bill of Lading for Injury done to Goods comprised

in the Bill. Action on

1. On or about the 4th day of June, 1873, the plaintiffs bill of lading for delivered to the defendants, and the defendants received and injury to goods. What a bill (a) A bill of lading is a document which is signed and delivered by a of lading is. ship-owner, or the master of the ship as his agent, to the shipper in a

general ship on goods being shipped. In practice, upon the goods being shipped, the mate usually gives the shipper an acknowledgment thereof, which is called the “mate's receipt,” and the shipper on taking this to the broker or captain of the ship, receives in exchange for it the bill of

lading. Bills of lad. Bills of lading are generally made out in parts, one or more of which ing made being sent to the consignee, one is retained by the shipper and another in parts. given to the master, captain, or ship-owner. The bill of lading, after men. What it

tioning the shipping of the goods in good order and condition, and their

destination, contains an undertaking to deliver them in the like good should

order and condition to the consignee or his assigns, the latter paying the contain.

agreed freight. How far

The delivery of a bill of lading duly indorsed passes the property to the indorse

indorsee, and since the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 111, the indorsee may sue on it

in his own name. The actual holder of a bill of lading though insolvent, ment confers a

may defeat, by a bonâ fide indorsement and delivery, the right of the title to the unpaid vendor or consignor to stop in transitu, even though the indorsee goods.

may know that the vendor or consignor was not paid, provided he did not know that the consignee was insolvent, or that bills given by the latter in payment were bad. (Cumming v. Brown, 9 East, 506.) This doctrine would hold even where the only consideration for the assignment of the bill of lading is a past one, and has not been got by means of the bill of lading. (Leask v. Scott, 46 L. J. 576, reversing judgment below and dissenting from Rodger v. The Comptoir d' Escompte

de Paris, 38 L. J. P. C. 30.) No pro

But no property passes if there is fraud in the transfer, or if there be perty

notice by the previous indorsement that the earlier transfer was only conpasses

ditional. (Virtue v. Jewell, 4 Camp. 31.) Nor can a bona fide indorsee where for value interfere with the consignor's right to stop in transitu, if the there is person through whom the bill of lading came to him had no authority fraud. from the shipper or consignee to put it in circulation, the bill of lading

being in this respect like an overdue bill of exchange. (Gurney v. Behrend, 3 E. & B.622.) The 18 & 19 Vict. c. 111, provides (sect. 2), that the extension which the Act gives to the rights and liabilities of indorsees shall not affect the right of stoppage in transitu. Where the bill of lading is negotiated by way of pledge, the right to stop in transitu remains subject to the pledgee's right in respect of his advance. (In re

Westzinthus, 5 B. & Ad. 817.) Right of Upon the sale of goods where the shipper takes and keeps in his own shipper hands a bill of lading making the goods deliverable to the shipper's order under bill with the intention of protecting himself, the effect of his so doing is to of lading preserve to him a hold over the goods until the vendee has fulfilled or has retained by been ready and willing to fulfil the conditions of the sale, and the hold so

preserved is not merely a right to retain possession till these conditions security. are fulfilled, but involves in it a power to dispose of the goods on the

vendee's default, so long at least as he continues in default. (Ogg v. Shuter, 45 L. J. 44, App.)

A bill of lading after indorsement is countermandable before actual

him as

accepted of the plaintiff's certain goods, to wit, the goods Action on described in the bill of lading hereinafter mentioned, to be bill of

lading for carried in the defendant's vessel “ A.,” then lying in the port injury to of London, from London to M., and to be there delivered goods. according to the terms and subject to the conditions contained in the said bill of lading.

2. The said bill of lading was signed by the master of the said vessel, and delivered to the plaintiffs.

3. The said bill of lading was and is, so far as is material to the present action, in the words, letters, and figures following, that is to say :

[Then follows the bill of lading, which was in the ordinary form.]

4. All conditions were performed on the part of the plaintiffs necessary to entitle them to have the said goods delivered for them by the defendants as aforesaid.

5. The said vessel sailed on her said voyage from London to M., and arrived there on or about the 27th day of July, 1873.

6. The said goods in the said bill of lading mentioned were delivered by the defendants to the agent of the M. Railway Company at M., but were not delivered in as good order and condition as they were in when shipped on board the said Vessel in London, but were delivered greatly damaged.

7. The damage to the said goods was caused by the negligence of the defendants, and was not occasioned by any of the perils or causes in the said bill of lading excepted.

8. By reason of the premises some of the said goods became and were and are of no use to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs were put to great expense in and about replacing the same, and

delivery thereof, or of the goods to the indorsee, but after the indorse. When bill ment and delivery of the bill of lading and invoice of the goods as of lading security against bills which are to be drawn by the indorsers on the in- counterdorsees, the indorsers cannot, after having obtained the acceptances and mandable. whilst the balance of accounts is in favour of the indorsees, countermand the delivery of the goods; and the master of the ship would be liable in trover if he acted under any such countermand. But scmble aliter if the balance of accounts was in favour of the indorsers. (IIaile v. Smith, 1 B. & P. 563.)

Construction of.]—The clause in a bill of lading by which the ship- Construcowner is not liable for rust, breakage, or leakage is limited to the injury tion of to the goods damaged by their own rust, breakage, or leakage, and does ordinary not protect him from an action for damage by rust, breakage, or leakage clause in of the goods of one person to those of another person. (Thrift v. Youle bill of fi Co., 46 L. J. 402.)

lading.

Action on the plaintiffs were further put to expense in and about repairing bill of

certain others of the said goods. Jading for injury to The plaintiffs claim £300 damages. goods.

Action on Bill of Lading for Damage to Goods in consequence of

negligent Stowing. Action for

1. The plaintiffs are merchants, carrying on business in the damage to goods City of London ; and the defendants are the owners of the caused by steamship “C.” trading between London and H. beyligent stuwing

2. In or about the month of August, 1877, the plaintiffs. delivered to the defendants at the port of H., in good order and condition, 280 bags of sugar, to be carried and conveyed by the defendants' steamship “C.” to London, upon the terms of a bill of lading made by the defendants, by which the said goods were to be delivered in the like good order and condition in which they were shipped, certain perils and casualties of the sea only excepted, at the port of London aforesaid, unto the plaintiffs. or their assigns, for freight at the rate therein specified to the defendants, with primage and average accustomed.

3. The plaintiffs paid the said freight and primage amounting in all to £4, and all conditions on the plaintiffs' part were performed, and the delivery of the said goods to the plaintiffs at London in good order and condition was not prevented by any of the excepted perils or casualties.

4. The defendants did not deliver the said goods in the said. good order and condition, but, on the contrary, delivered the same in a damaged and wholly unmerchantable condition.

5. Such damage was caused by the sugar becoming tainted with oxide of zinc, or some similar matter, owing to the improper and negligent stowing by the defendants' servants of the said sugar and other goods shipped in the said steamship.

6. By reason of the premises, the plaintiffs have lost the value of the said sugar, and the freight and primage paid for the same, and incurred divers charges and expenses in respect thereof.

The plaintiff's claim £1000 damages.

Action by Indorsees on Bill of Lading for Price of Goods sold as

Part of Cargo of stranded Ship. 1. The plaintiffs are merchants in the City of London. Action by Defendants are shipowners at H., and the owners of the vessel

indorsees

of bills of called the “ V.”

lading. 2. In or about the month of November, 1876, Messrs. A. H. & Co., of Riga, shipped on board the defendants' said vessel, at the port of Riga aforesaid, four several parcels of goods to be by the defendants safely and securely carried from the said port of H., on the terms of four several bills of lading of like tenor, made by the defendants, by which the said goods were to be delivered in the like good order and condition wherein the same were shipped at the said port of H., certain perils excepted, for freight to the defendants in that behalf.

3. The descriptions, quantities, and marks of the said four parcels of goods so shipped under the said four bills of lading respectively, were as follows :

[Here follow particulars of goods in question.] 4. The said four bills of lading were indorsed by the said Messrs. A. H. & Co. to the plaintiffs.

5. In the course of the voyage the vessel stranded, and was taken into C. with her cargo, which was discharged, and a portion of it sold. The residue was forwarded to its destination, and the vessel, having been repaired, completed her voyage to H.

6. The plaintiffs' goods were sold by the defendants at C., and the proceeds thereof were received by the defendants, and are still retained and held by them under a claim for losses in respect of general and particular average, and particular charges alleged by the defendants to have been incurred in respect of the said vessel, her freight, and cargo ; and the defendants claim to deduct from the said proceeds an improper and excessive amount in respect of the said losses and charges, and refuse to account for or pay to the plaintiffs the amount due to them in respect of the sale of their goods.

7. The plaintiffs claim to be entitled to recover the amount Action by of the said proceeds, or the said proceeds after deducting there- indorsees

of bills of from the amount properly chargeable against the plaintiffs in lading. respect of their said goods and the losses aforesaid. The plaintiffs

« 上一頁繼續 »