Page images
PDF
EPUB

the vendor to the buyer, or to some place where it is agreed that possession shall be taken by the latter. If the buyer becomes insolvent, without having paid for the goods, while they are still in transit, the vendor is entitled to retake possession of them, and so regain his lien. This is called the right of stoppage in transitu.

Now it has been well settled that this right of the vendor is effectual where the bill of lading for the goods remains in the hands of the buyer who has become insolvent ; but where he has assigned that bill of lading for value, and parted with it, whether by way of sale or by way of security, the right of the unpaid vendor is ineffectual against the assignees. That is the point which, as already said, was decided in the case of Lickbarrow v. Mason.

But the rule thus established applies only to cases in which a bill of lading has been assigned by the insolvent buyer. In a case in the coasting trade, where no bill of lading was used, an advance had been obtained on a deposit of a letter from the forwarding agents (described as a shipping note), with a delivery order on the wharfinger at the destination. It was held that the vendor's right to stop the goods in transit was not defeated. (Akerman v. Humphrey, 1 C. & P. 53). So where a delivery order on the ship was given to the buyer of part of the cargo, by the holders of a bill of lading which comprised that and also other cargo, it was held that a transfer of that delivery order did not defeat their right to stop the goods on the insolvency of the buyer. (Jenkins v. Usborne, 7 M. & G. 678).

By the Factors' Act, 1889 (section 10), this peculiar quality of a bill of lading was extended to other documents of title within the definition of that Act. Transfers of such documents now have the same effect in defeating a vendor's lien, or right to stop the goods in transit, as the transfer of a bill of lading had before the Act.

I have spoken of a bill of lading as though it were a single thing, a single document, the transfer of which constructively transfers possession of the goods. But the bill of lading is not generally a single document; the practice is to make it in a set, sometimes of three or four, sometimes of six, even, I believe, up to eight bills of lading, all signed by the master of the ship. Which, then, of these is

, to transfer the possession of the goods ?

This practice has given rise to troublesome cases, and there have been frequent expressions of disapproval of it by the Courts. The case of Meyerstein v. Barber (L.R. 4, H.L. 317) may be cited as an example. There three bills of lading had been signed for a quantity of cotton which was consigned to one Abrahams at London. All three were in the hands of bankers as security for bills drawn against the cotton. The goods were landed at London, subject to a stop for freight. On February 9th, Abrahams instructed Barber & Co. to sell the cotton, and they took samples of it at the wharf. On March 4th he obtained an advance from Meyerstein ; paid off the bankers; and so obtained the three bills of lading, and deposited two of them with Meyerstein. On March 6th and 7th he obtained advances from Barber & Co., giving them the third of the bills of lading, and he paid the freight. Barber & Co. afterwards got actual possession of the cotton. But it was held that Meyerstein was entitled to claim it from them. And you will see that that was the necessary conclusion from the view that the pledge to Meyerstein on March 4th, with the bill of lading, was complete. Constructively, possession then passed to him. It therefore did not pass to Barber and Co. upon the subsequent pledge to them, although that also was coupled with transfer of a bill of lading.

In a subsequent case (Glyn v. East & West India Dock Co., 7 A.C. 591), in which the facts were somewhat similar, an attempt was made by the first pledgees, to whom only one part of the bill of lading had been transferred, to make the Dock Company liable for delivering the goods to the consignee on presentation of one of the other parts. But the attempt failed. It was held that the Dock Company were in the same position as the master of the ship, and were justified, or excused, as he would have been, in delivering the goods to the person who appeared to be the holder of the bill of lading, they having no notice of the assignment of any other part of it.

In this latter case Lord Blackburn said: “I have never been able “to learn why merchants and shipowners continue the practice of “making out a bill of lading in parts. I should have thought that,

at least since the introduction of quick and regular communication “ by steamers, and still more since the establishment of the electric “ telegraph, every purpose would be answered by making one bill of “lading only, which should be the sole document of title, and taking “as many copies, certified by the master to be true copies, as it is “thought convenient. Those copies would suffice for every legitimate “ purpose for which the other parts of the bill can now be applied, “but could not be used for the purpose of pretending to be holder of “a bill of lading already parted with."

In the same case Lord Cairns pointed out that the remedy for this is in the hands of the banker. The banker can insist on having all the parts of the bill of lading brought in and deposited, or in some way accounted for. And as a practical point I suggest that to you. I understand that it is a matter which is being practically considered by bankers ; that they should put an end to this system, which gives opportunities for fraud, by insisting in each case either that the whole of the signed bills of lading shall be delivered to them, or that the absence of the missing parts shall be satisfactorily explained.

THE WORK OF THE LONDON CLEARING HOUSE

IN 1895.

[blocks in formation]

155,068,000
169,729,000
176,137,000
211,095,000
256,899,000
272,156,000
265,427,000
245,810.000
225,936,000
232,630,000
217,753,000
213,318,000
236,809,000
253,133,000
238,150,000
239,080,000
242,659,000
221,873,000
215,519,000
256,169,000
272,091,000
290,117,000
289,107.000
264,501,000
260.422.000
268,084,000
261,517,000
283,610,000

523,319,000
564,935,000
634,914,000

806,356,000
1,015,959,000
1,038,257,000
1,010,456,000
1,043,464,000

761,091,000
744,085,000
795,413,000

842,937,000
1,151,867,000
1,383,430,000
1,228,916,000
1,058,703,000

960,623,000
935,081.000
1,198,557,000
1,145,812,000
1,252,466,000
1,338,812,000
1,416,543,000
1,067,403,000
1,022,764,000
1,002,661,000

964,455,000
1,304,679,000

134,552,000
149,932,000
163,230,000
210,647,000
246,922,000
219,755,000
260,244,000
251,572,000
225,948,000
228,254,000
227,241,000
225,381,000
255,224,000
278,864,000
278,387,000
254,620,000
268,352.000
249,327,000
263,497.000
297,199,000
332,470,000
351.690.000
358,598,000
314,897,000
299,405,000
300,478,000
301,448,000
345,446,000

The increase in the clearings during the past year, as against those
of 1894, has amounted to more than 1,250 millions sterling, thus at
a stroke practically recovering the losses of the preceding four years,
and bringing back the figures very close to the record year of 1890.
The exceptional character of the returns for that year, and for 1889,
was shown by the extent to which the reaction went in 1891. The
falling off then amounted to nearly 1,000 millions, whilst the general

experience has been that the decreases have been much smaller in
amount than the increases. Of the twenty-seven consecutive years
here shown, the cases of decrease number thirteen, yet the total has
progressed from 3,425 millions to 7,592 millions.

During the past year the increases on Stock Exchange Settling
Days amount to 340 millions ; not an undue proportion of the whole.
Speaking generally, it will be seen that the movements in each of the
columns of this table have been in about the same proportion.

The following table shows that the average amount cleared on each
of the different classes of days bears about the same relation to the
figures of 1889 and 1890, as is shown by the general totals :

[blocks in formation]

4.5

4.1

1839

2:9

4:1

3:1

1868

1869

1870

1871

1872

1873

1874

1875

1876

1877

1878

1879

1880

1881

1882

1883

1884

1885

1886

1887

1888

1889

1890

1891

1892

1893

1894

1895

10.0

10-5

11.3

138

16.9

17.3

16:9

15-9

14:4

14.9

14.4

13:9

14.4

17.1

17.2

16.8

16.6

15.8

16.2

16.8

19.6

21.7

22:1

20:1

18.8

18.9

1806

21:8

12.9

14:1

14.6

17.6

21:4

22.7

22:1

20-5

18.8

19.4

18-1

17.8

19.7

21.1

19.8

19.9

20-2

18.5

17.9

21:3

22:7

24.2

24.0

22:0

21.7

22:3

21.8

23.6

11.2

12.5

13.6

17-5

20-6

20.8

21.7

20.9

18.8

19.0

18.9

18.8

21.2

23.2

23.2

21.2

22:3

20.8

21.9

24.8

27.7

29-3

29.9

26.2

24.9

25.0

25-1

28.8

21.8

23.5

26.4

33.6

42:3

43:3

42:1

435

31.7

31.0

33.1

35 1

480

57.6

51.3

44:1

40:1

38.9

49.9

47.7

52.2

5568

590

44.5
42:6
41.8
40-2
5+:4

11.1
11.8
12:7
15.7
19-2
1907
19.3
18.5

16:1

16.4

16.2

15-9

18.8

20-6

20-2

19.2

18.9

17.9

19.1

19.7

22-5

247

25:3

22:3

21.0

21.1

20.6

24.7

The following tables, giving the monthly totals for the last ten years, and the variations from the yearly average shown in each month, and in each half-year, are in continuation of returns previously prepared for the Journal by Mr. John B. Martin (Vol. x, pp. 88 et seq., and Vol. XIV, pp. 94-95).

Table showing the totals paid each Month (millions of £),

1886 to 1895.

[blocks in formation]

Total for 1st 6 mths.

2,803 3,075 3,461 3,844 3,908 3,562 3,300 3,370 3,246 3,574

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Total for 2nd 6 mths. I

3,038 3,002 3,481 3,775 3,893 3,285 3,181 3,108 3,091 1,019

TotalforYear 5,901 6,077 6,942 7,619 7,801 6,817 6,481 6,478 6,337 7,593

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »