Mechan & Sons, Ltd v. North-Eastern Railway Co. [1911] ScotLR 987 (22 July 1911)

Mechan & Sons, Ltd v. North-Eastern Railway Co. [1911] ScotLR 987 (22 July 1911)

The right of stoppage in transitu was validly exercised because the goods had not reached the contractually appointed destination (the buyer's yard) and had not been delivered to the buyer or his agent in that behalf. The carting contractor was not the buyer's agent for delivery, and part delivery of one boat did not constitute delivery of both. The railway company was liable for damages for wrongful delivery after notice of stoppage.

Citation
[1911] ScotLR 987
Parties
Pursuer: Mechan & Sons, Limited; Defender: North-Eastern Railway Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 July 1911
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff to Court of Session Inner House Second Division
Outcome
appeal allowed; interlocutor of Sheriff recalled; interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute restored; defenders found liable in damages
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Delivery of Goods, Stoppage in Transitu, Duration of Transit, Carrier's Liability
Commercial Law Contract Law Sale of Goods Delivery of Goods Stoppage in Transitu Duration of Transit Carrier's Liability

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mechan & Sons, Limited

Pursuer

North-Eastern Railway Company

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff to Court of Session Inner House Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the unpaid seller's right of stoppage in transitu was validly exercised before delivery of the goods to the buyer or his agent.
  2. 2 Whether delivery to an independent carting contractor constituted delivery to the buyer or ended the transit under the Sale of Goods Act 1893, section 45.
  3. 3 Whether part delivery of goods under section 45(7) of the Sale of Goods Act 1893 precluded stoppage in transitu of the remainder.

Ratio Decidendi

The right of stoppage in transitu was validly exercised because the goods had not reached the contractually appointed destination (the buyer's yard) and had not been delivered to the buyer or his agent in that behalf. The carting contractor was not the buyer's agent for delivery, and part delivery of one boat did not constitute delivery of both. The railway company was liable for damages for wrongful delivery after notice of stoppage.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; interlocutor of Sheriff recalled; interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute restored; defenders found liable in damages

Orders

  • Defenders to pay damages of £61 10s to pursuers
  • Interlocutor of Sheriff dated 7th June 1910 recalled