8 THE LAW JOURNAL NOTES OF CASES. [Jan. 22, 1869.
Mr. Russell Roberts on behalf of the defendant William Fawcett, and
Mr. Wickens, for the defendant J. M. Barstow, supported the demurrers.
Mr. Kay and Mr. Cottrell in support of the bill.
James, V.C., said the bill was in the nature of a suit of equitable ejectment so far as regarded the equitable estates. The pleading point, whether a simple allegation that the plaintiff was heir-at-law was aufficient to maintain the bill, had been discussed and decided in Barrs v. Fewkes, 2 H. & M. 60; 33 Law J. Rep. Chanc. 484. He should follow that case in overruling the demurrers, and in making the costs costs in the cause.
Courts of Common Law.
Queen's Bench
Jan. 15
Shepherd v. Harrison and Another.
Principal and Agent—Vesting of Property in Goods—Bill of Lading and Bill of Exchange forwarded together.
In this case, Paton, Nash, & Co. (hereinafter called the consignors) were merchants at Pernambuco, and George Paton & Co. (hereinafter called the Liverpool House) were their correspondents at Liverpool. The plaintiff wrote to the consignors requesting them to buy 1,000 bales of cotton on his account at a certain price, including cost, freight, and insurance. The consignors purchased and shipped 747 bales, and wrote advising the plaintiff of the shipment, and that they should draw upon him on forwarding bills of lading. They sent him a second letter, enclosing invoices of the 747 bales, headed ‘on account and risk of S. & Co.’ (the plaintiff), and saying, ‘We have drawn upon you as per note at foot for the same, for which we beg your protection.’ The bills of lading for these bales were forwarded by the consignors to their Liverpool house, with two bills of exchange for the price, and the Liverpool house forwarded them to the plaintiff in a letter, saying, ‘We enclose bills on yourselves, to which please do the needful, and return to us in course.’ The plaintiff returned the bills accepted, but protesting that part of the cotton had not been bought according to his instructions. A correspondence followed on the subject, but the plaintiff paid the bilis at maturity. The consignors then shipped 200 other bales, and wrote to the plaintiff, enclosing an invoice ‘on account and risk of S. & Co.’ (the plaintiff), and saying that they had drawn upon him for the amount, and stating that they enclosed the bill of lading. But the bill of lading, which made the cotton deliverable to the consignors’ ‘order or assigns,’ was forwarded, indorsed in blank, to the Liverpool house, with a draft on the plaintiff for the price. The Liverpool house forwarded the bill of lading to the plaintiff, together with the draft, for which they ‘begged his protection.’ The plaintiff refused to accept this draft, on the ground that his order had not been complied with, and ultimately brought trover for the 200 bales.
Quain (Jordan with him), for the plaintiff, contended that the property in the cotton had passed to the plaintiff, and that his acceptance of the bill of exchange was not a condition p ent to hia right to receive the cotton.
Holker for the consignors (who had indemnified the defendants).
The Court (Cocxsury, C.J., MELtor, J., HaxwEn, J., and Hayes, J.) held that, looking at all the facts of the case, it must be inferred that the consignors intended that the delivery of the bill of lnding to the plaintiff and his acceptance of the bill of exchange should be simultaneous. The property in the cotton had therefore never passed to the plaintiff.
Judgment for the defendants.
-
PaLMER's SHIP-BUILDING AND
Queen's Bench. Tron Co. (Lin. anp Repucen) (Magistrate os Case). (AppEitants), Cnayron (Ree
SPONDENT).
Factory Acts, 7 §& 8 Vict. c. 15—13 § 14 Viet. c. E4— 16 § 17 Vict. ec. 104—30 & 31 Viet. c. 1083—Factory— Articie of Metal—Child,
Case stated by Justices under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 48.
The reapondent had laid an information against the sppellants, in which it was alleged that they had ofiended against the provisions of the 30 & 31 Vict. « 103, and the statutes incorporated therewith, 7 & 8 Vict. c. 15; 18 & 14 Vict. «. 54; 16 & 17 Vict. c. 104, in that they being the occupiers of a certain sbip-build- ing factory, being a factory within the meaning of such statute, did employ in their said factory a certain child, named Smith Kenn. dy, under the age of eleven years, six and a half hours per day. The evidence given belore the justices showed that the company carry on works comprising the business of blast furnaces, iron ro)ling- mills, engine buildings, and iron ship-building in all its branches. The whole of the works are within one common boundary. Steam machinery is used for the purposes of the company, and in each department more
