Northern Grain Co. v. Goderich Elevator & Transit Co.

Northern Grain Co. v. Goderich Elevator & Transit Co.

The court held the respondent liable because the parties’ prior correspondence and the elevator’s prescribed procedure required that rail shipping bills (and thus delivery) be held against production or endorsement of the lake bills and payment of attached drafts; the May 31 letter did not plainly authorize departure from that procedure, so delivery without production/payment was unauthorized and breached the respondent’s duties as bailee.

Citation
[1926] SCR 120
Parties
Appellant: Northern Grain Co., Ltd.; Respondent: Goderich Elevator & Transit Co., Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 December 1925
Procedural Posture
Contract (sale of Goods / Bailment) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Appellate Division reversed; judgment of trial judge restored.
Legal Topics
Delivery of Goods, Bills of Lading, Authority to Deliver, Bailee Liability, Documentary Control of Title
Source Language
English
Contract Sale of Goods Bailement Warehouse Law Commercial Law Delivery of Goods Bills of Lading Authority to Deliver +2 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Northern Grain Co., Ltd.

Appellant

Goderich Elevator & Transit Co., Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contract (sale of Goods / Bailment) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the warehouseman (respondent) was liable for delivering stored grain to a purchaser who did not produce lake bills of lading
  2. 2 Whether the appellant’s May 31 correspondence authorized delivery of rail shipping bills to the purchaser irrespective of production/payment of lake bills
  3. 3 Whether the shipping and handling procedure between parties required retention of rail bills against lake bills and payment of drafts prior to delivery

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the respondent liable because the parties’ prior correspondence and the elevator’s prescribed procedure required that rail shipping bills (and thus delivery) be held against production or endorsement of the lake bills and payment of attached drafts; the May 31 letter did not plainly authorize departure from that procedure, so delivery without production/payment was unauthorized and breached the respondent’s duties as bailee.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Appellate Division reversed; judgment of trial judge restored.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs here and in the Appellate Division
  • Judgment of Riddell J. restored (respondent held liable to appellant)