Grace Brothers Limited v Lawson [1922] HCA 46

Grace Brothers Limited v Lawson [1922] HCA 46

The appellant, by its conduct in delivering the furniture to the respondent auctioneer without qualification and in accordance with a usual business course, represented that it had no further interest in the goods, and the respondent was to account to the true owner, not the appellant. Therefore, the appellant could not maintain an action for conversion or for money had and received, as no further relationship with respect to the goods or proceeds existed between the appellant and respondent at the relevant times.

Parties
Appellant: Grace Brothers Limited; Respondent: James Robert Lawson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 1922
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales to High Court of Australia
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Conversion, Money Had and Received, Fraud, Auction Sales, Estoppel
Bailment Torts Conversion Money Had and Received Fraud Auction Sales Estoppel

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grace Brothers Limited

Appellant

James Robert Lawson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales to High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bailee (appellant) could recover from the auctioneer (respondent) for conversion or money had and received after delivering goods to him following a fraud by a third party
  2. 2 Whether the defendant auctioneer was liable to the bailee for selling the goods and paying the proceeds to a fraudster

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant, by its conduct in delivering the furniture to the respondent auctioneer without qualification and in accordance with a usual business course, represented that it had no further interest in the goods, and the respondent was to account to the true owner, not the appellant. Therefore, the appellant could not maintain an action for conversion or for money had and received, as no further relationship with respect to the goods or proceeds existed between the appellant and respondent at the relevant times.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.