Dobell, Beckett, & Co. v. Neilson [1904] ScotLR 42_279 (16 December 1904)

Dobell, Beckett, & Co. v. Neilson [1904] ScotLR 42_279 (16 December 1904)

Delivery-orders addressed to Haggart & Company did not effect constructive delivery as they were not independent custodiers but agents of M'Dowall & Neilson; thus, John Birkmyre Neilson never had valid security over the timber. The subsequent endorsement of bills of lading within sixty days of bankruptcy was an illegal preference and void. The unpaid sellers were entitled to stop the goods in transitu as the bills of exchange were not 'approved bills' and the sellers remained unpaid.

Citation
[1904] ScotLR 42_279
Parties
Pursuer: Dobell, Beckett, & Company; Defender: John Birkmyre Neilson; Defender: Robert Reid (Trustee of M'Dowall & Neilson)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 December 1904
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House, Second Division
Outcome
appeal dismissed; judgment for pursuers affirmed
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Stoppage in Transitu, Constructive Delivery, Illegal Preference, Security Over Goods, Bankruptcy, Endorsement of Bills of Lading
Commercial Law Bankruptcy Law Sale of Goods Stoppage in Transitu Constructive Delivery Illegal Preference Security Over Goods Bankruptcy +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dobell, Beckett, & Company

Pursuer

John Birkmyre Neilson

Defender

Robert Reid (Trustee of M'Dowall & Neilson)

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House, Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delivery-orders addressed to timber measurers constituted valid security by constructive delivery
  2. 2 Whether the transfer of bills of lading within sixty days of bankruptcy was an illegal preference under Act 1696, c. 5
  3. 3 Whether the unpaid sellers had the right to stop goods in transitu under the Sale of Goods Act 1893, sections 44 and 45

Ratio Decidendi

Delivery-orders addressed to Haggart & Company did not effect constructive delivery as they were not independent custodiers but agents of M'Dowall & Neilson; thus, John Birkmyre Neilson never had valid security over the timber. The subsequent endorsement of bills of lading within sixty days of bankruptcy was an illegal preference and void. The unpaid sellers were entitled to stop the goods in transitu as the bills of exchange were not 'approved bills' and the sellers remained unpaid.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; judgment for pursuers affirmed

Orders

  • Declarator that pursuers validly stopped the cargo in transitu and have a valid lien for the price.
  • Reduction of the endorsement and transfer of bills of lading to John Birkmyre Neilson as null and void.