Action on bill of Jading for injury to goods.

Action for damage to goods

the plaintiffs were further put to expense in and about repairing certain others of the said goods.

The plaintiffs claim £300 damages.

Action on Bill of Lading for Damage to Goods in consequence of negligent Stowing.

1. The plaintiffs are merchants, carrying on business in the City of London; and the defendants are the owners of the caused by steamship "C." trading between London and H.

negligent stowing.

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 plaintiff's paid the said freight and primage amounting in all to £, and all conditions on the plaintiffs' part were performed, and the delivery of the said goods to the plaintiff's 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 plaintiffs 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 called the "V."

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.

of bills of

lading.

of bills of

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

Action by consignee of goods and in

dorsee of bill of lading.

also claim the same as money received by the defendants to the use of the plaintiffs.

8. The plaintiffs also say that the defendants, for good consideration in that behalf, promised the plaintiffs to obtain and have a due and proper adjustment of the said losses and charges. made up, and to pay and account to the plaintiffs for the said proceeds of their goods after deducting therefrom the amounts properly payable by the plaintiffs in respect of such losses and charges; and although all things happened and all times elapsed to entitle the plaintiffs to maintain this action for the breach by the defendants hereinafter mentioned, yet the defendants have not obtained nor have they had a due and proper adjustment of the said losses made up; and although the plaintiffs became and are entitled to receive from the defendants the said proceeds after deducting the amounts payable by the plaintiffs as aforesaid, the defendants have not repaid or accounted to the plaintiffs for the same, or any part thereof, in accordance with their promise in that behalf.

The plaintiffs claim :

£3180, with interest thereon till payment; or in the alternative, £6290 damages.

Action by Consignee of Goods on Bill of Lading for Injury to
Portion of Goods, and Loss of another Portion.

1. The plaintiff is a sugar merchant, carrying on business in London. The defendants A. and C. are the registered owners, and the defendant B. is the master of the steamship "L."

2. In January, 1877, the plaintiff bought from Messrs. S. & Co., of Paris, a quantity of sugar in loaves, with instructions. to forward it per steamer, via Tréport, to London, a through freight being payable for the same, in accordance with the bill of lading hereinafter mentioned.

to

3. The sugar was duly forwarded from Paris and conveyed by the Tréport Railway Company.

4. On the 24th of January, 1877, the sugar was shipped by the said railway company, in good order and condition, on board the "L.," then lying in the port of Tréport and bound for London; and the defendant B., as master of the said ship, received the same to be carried from Tréport to London, upon the terms of four bills of lading signed by him as master, and to be delivered

to order, of which bills of lading, being in form similar to one Action by another, the following is a copy :—

[Here follows the bill of lading set out at length.]

consignee of goods and in

dorsee of

5. The bills of lading were indorsed by the shipping agent of bill of lading. the said railway company at Tréport to the plaintiff.

6. On the said 24th of January, the "L" left Tréport, and arrived in London on the 25th, being then, and having been at and before the signing of the said bills of lading and the shipment of the goods, unseaworthy.

7. The sugar was not delivered to the plaintiff in like good order and condition as when shipped, but there was a short delivery of about 201 loaves, and a further quantity of about 80 loaves was delivered in a damaged condition.

8. The loss of the said 201 loaves and the damage to the other portion were caused by the negligence of the defendants, and were not occasioned by any of the perils or causes in the said bill of lading excepted.

9. By reason of the premises the plaintiff lost the value of the said 201 loaves of sugar, and the said goods so damaged as aforesaid became and were of no value to the plaintiff, and he was put to great expense in relation thereto.

Action on an Annuity Bond.

1. The plaintiff is, &c. The defendant is, &c.

2. On the 8th of February, 1875, the defendant executed a bond bearing that date, whereby he became bound to the plaintiff in the sum of £1000, subject to the condition that

(a) A bond is a contract under seal to pay a stated sum of money. Definition It is either absolute, in which case the obligation to pay the money of a bond. is absolute; or conditional, in which case the money is only payable conditionally, and ceases to be payable or absolutely payable on the happening or doing of a certain thing, e. g., the payment of a less sum or the due performance of certain duties. If the condition is entire and unlawful, the bond is void (Collins v. Blantern, 1 Sm. L. C. 325); but if the condition is severable and part of it is good, the bond is valid to that extent. (Yale v. Rex (in error), 6 Br. P. C. 61.) In the case of

Action on

if the defendant should pay to the plaintiff £150 half-yearly an annuity on the 8th day of August and the 8th day of February in every

bond.

Action on a
bond to
secure the
honesty,
&c., of a
servant.

No particu. lar words

necessary to constitute.

year from the date of such bond during the life of the plaintiff, the said bond should be void.

3. On the 10th of February, 1878, the sum of £300, for two of the said half-yearly payments of the said annuity, was due and payable to the plaintiff, and is still unpaid.

The plaintiff claims £1000, the amount of the said bond.

Action on Bond to secure due Performance of Duty and against
Defalcations in Accounts.

1. The plaintiff is, &c. The defendant is, &c.

2. By a bond bearing date the 1st day of January, 1870, the defendant became bound to the plaintiff in the sum of £2000, to be paid by him to the plaintiff, subject to a condition that if one J. B. C. therein described would well and faithfully discharge the duties of managing clerk to the plaintiff, and would duly, promptly, and honestly account for and pay over to the plaintiff all moneys coming into his hands on behalf of the plaintiff during the period of his service to the plaintiff as such managing clerk, then the said bond should be void.

3. The said J. B. C., on or about the 1st of May, 1877, absconded himself from his duties as such managing clerk, and has not since returned thereto.

4. The said J. B. C. did not during his period of service duly, promptly, and honestly account for the money coming to his hands as aforesaid, but appropriated to his own use the sum of £350.

The plaintiff claims £2000.

alternative conditions if one becomes impossible, the other as a general rule becomes absolute. (Da Costa v. Dares, 1 B. & P. 242.)

No precise form of words is necessary to create a bond; so long as there is a writing under seal, acknowledging a debt or denoting an intention on the part of the person who becomes bound (obligor) to pay another (obligee) a specified sum of money, this is sufficient to constitute a bond. Thus "I, A. B., have borrowed £10 of C. D.," or "Memorandum that A. owes B. £10," are sufficient. (See Addison, Contr., 7th ed. 171.) It is of course usual to introduce the words "to be held and firmly bound," but neither these nor any other formal words of a similar kind appear to be necessary.

If no time is limited in a bond for payment, the money is payable on demand.