Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. v. Hickman Grain Co. Ltd.

Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. v. Hickman Grain Co. Ltd.

Carrier not liable for delivery made to the holder entitled to possession at time of delivery; a pledgee who acquires a bill while goods remain in transit acquires special property and can enforce delivery if carrier delivers after transfer; estoppel not established where carrier followed common practice of delivery on indemnity and transferee had knowledge of that practice and no superior contractual status was created by endorsement after delivery.

Citation
[1928] SCR 170
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Plaintiff/respondent: Hickman Grain Company Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 February 1928
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (carrier/bill of Lading) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Manitoba (trial Judgment of Macdonald J. Affirmed in Part Below)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: judgment reduced. Carrier liable for one car (bill no. 209554) where bill was endorsed to plaintiff before delivery; carrier not liable for seven cars delivered to holder prior to plaintiff's endorsement; costs allocated accordingly.
Legal Topics
Bills of Lading, Negotiability, Estoppel, Delivery of Goods, Pledge/secured Advances, Carrier Liability
Source Language
English
Transportation Commercial Law Contract Property Equity Bills of Lading Negotiability Estoppel +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canadian Pacific Railway Company

Defendant/appellant

Hickman Grain Company Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (carrier/bill of Lading) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Manitoba (trial Judgment of Macdonald J. Affirmed in Part Below)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the carrier liable for delivering bulk grain without surrender of bills of lading?
  2. 2 Did a pledgee/endorsee of a bill of lading acquire contractual rights entitling it to demand delivery?
  3. 3 Was the carrier estopped from denying liability by its practice of delivering on indemnity bonds and leaving bills outstanding?

Ratio Decidendi

Carrier not liable for delivery made to the holder entitled to possession at time of delivery; a pledgee who acquires a bill while goods remain in transit acquires special property and can enforce delivery if carrier delivers after transfer; estoppel not established where carrier followed common practice of delivery on indemnity and transferee had knowledge of that practice and no superior contractual status was created by endorsement after delivery.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: judgment reduced. Carrier liable for one car (bill no. 209554) where bill was endorsed to plaintiff before delivery; carrier not liable for seven cars delivered to holder prior to plaintiff's endorsement; costs allocated accordingly.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part and judgment reduced to reflect liability for only bill no. 209554.
  • If parties cannot agree on adjusted amount, the point may be spoken to the court.