Bateman v Green and King

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 13 June 1868
• Date: 13 June 1868
• Court: Court of Exchequer Chamber (Ireland)

Exch. Cham.

Before MONAHAN, C. J., PIGOT, C. B., KEGH, Oƒ€™HAGAN, and MORRIS, JJ., and FITZGERALD AND DEASY, BB.

BATEMAN

and

GREEN AND KING

Ante, p. 166.

Philpotts v. PhlpottsENR10 C. B. 85.

Jones v. Yates9 B. & Cr. 532.

Robinson v. Mƒ€™DonnellENR2 B. & Ald. 134.

Hawes v. LeaderENRCro. Jac. 271, 272.

Bessey v. Windham6 Q. B. 166.

Woodley v. CoventryENR2 H. & C. 164.

Gillett v. HillENR2 Cr. & M. 530.

Trickett v. TomlinsonENR13 C. B. N. S. 663.

Ante, p. 179.

Ashpitel v. Bryan3 B. & Sm. 474.

Gorton v. GregoryIbid. 90.

Wethers v. ParkerENR4 H. & N. 810

Snook v. Mattock5 A. & E. 239.

Cowan v. BriceENR6 M. & W. 183.

Lickbarrow v. MasonUNK1 Sm. L. C. 757.

Barrow v. ColesENR3 Campb 92.

Gurney v. BehrendENR3 El. & Bl. 622.

Cox v. HardenENR4 East, 211.

Mitchell v. EadeENR11 Ad. & El. 888.

Turner v. Trustees of the Liverpool DocksENR6 Exch. 543.

Reeves v. Capper5 Bingh. N. C. 136.

Gurney v. BehrendENR3 E. & B. 622.

Interpleader Indorsement of Bill of Lading Fraud.

COMMON LAW SERIES. 607 I am willing to acknowledge, at the same time, that if it be Exch. Chant. sufficient, it will be a discovery in the art of pleading which, from 1868. its simplicity, will truly merit the name of a great one, especially isicKniNry considering the embarrassment which this class of cases has imsKV*TH.. created. WESTERN Judgment reversed. RAILWAY Co. Attorneys for the Plaintiff : Hayden and Rogan. Attorney for the Defendants : Alexander Boyd. BATEMAN v. GREEN AND KING (1). Exch. Chan. 1868. Interpleader-Indorsement of Bill of Lading-Fraud. A. sold a quantity of iron to B., on the stipulation that the iron was to be shipped, but to remain l.'s property until paid for. The bill of lading was consigned to G., and made deliverable to G.'s order. While the iron was still unpaid for, A. consented to its delivery to the L. Railway Co., to be used on their line, provided his rights of property were reserved. G. indorsed the bills of lading to the Co., and the goods were delivered, the Co. having notice of the first agreement with A., and of the condition of his consent to the deÂÂlivery. Upon the trial of an interpleader issue, which arose between A. and an execution creditor of the Co., the Judge told the jury that if they believed that A. never parted with the property, and that the Co., at the time of the delivery to them of the goods and indorsement of the bill of lading, bail notice of the rights of A. under his contract with B., they should find for him. The jury found for A. No question of fraud was asked to be left to the jury. On motion for a new trial, Held, affirming the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, that the direcÂÂtion was right. May 27, 28. June 13. Tins was an appeal by the Defendants from an order of the Court of Queen's Bench, dated. the 29th June, 1867, upholding a verdict for the Plaintiff. The facts of the case are fully stated in the report of the decision in the Court below (2). The following were the grounds of appeal :- 1st. That the Plaintiff, having consented to the indorsement of the bills of lading of the iron rails and fastenings, the subject mat (1) Before MONAHAN, C. J., PIGOT, JJ., and. FITZGERALD and DEASY, BB. C. B., KEOGH, O'HAGAN, and MORRIS, (2) Ante, p. 166. 2 T2 Exch. Cham. ter of this issue, and. to the delivery of the possession of said. goods 1868. and chattels to the Letterkenny Railway Company, was estoppel BATExxv from claiming said goods and chattels as his own. v. 2nd. That it was not competent for the Plaintiff , having been (}REEK Mill KING. a party to the said indorsement and to the said delivery of possesÂÂsion, for the purpose of enabling the said company thereby to obtain a Government loan, to retain any property in said goods and chattels after such indorsement and delivery of possession. 3rd. That such retention of property by the Plaintiff in said goods and chattels would, under the circumstances, be a gross fraud, and contrary to public policy, and as such could not be relied on by the Plaintiff as a ground of claim. 4th. That, assuming that the said railway company had notice of Plaintiff's claim, no such agreement as that relied on by the Plaintiff could control or cut down the...