Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 EXERCITOR.
Subject_3 A purchaser from a ship-master of a cargo, which the purchaser knew had not arrived at the place of its destination, is liable to the owners in damages.

John Richardson and Company
v.
Messrs Stoner, Hunter, and Company

Date: 20 November 1783

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

[Faculty Collection, IX. 198; Dictionary, 3956.]

[No notes taken in this circumstantiated case; but the following are the notes of Hailes, who, on account of the connexion between this and another cause, in which he was declined, did not vote.]

Messrs Stoner, Hunter, and Company knew that Captain Martin had no power over the cargo of salmon, and that it was under engagement to Venice.

In this view of the case they gave their advice, and it was to sell the cargo in Spain.

1st, Because the ship had sprung a leak. 2dly, Because it was so late in the season, that the ship could not have reached Venice before Lent was over; and, consequently, that the salmon could not have been sold to advantage at Venice.

As to the first, Messrs Stoner and Company did not know any thing, at that time, of the nature of the leak, and it was easily stopt up.

As to the second, it seems trifling to say that the market for salmon at Venice depended on Lent, for, in Roman Catholic countries, there are many fish-days throughout the year; and, at Venice, there are many thousands of the Greek Church who observe different Lents, not connected with the observances of the Roman Catholic Church.

Messrs Stoner and Company did not know the current price of salmon at Venice: what they said was merely from guess.

Besides, Messrs Richardson and Company might have inclined to sell the salmon at Venice on a small profit, or on no profit at all, in order to begin a trade of exporting salmon from the Tay to Venice.

One merchant is not to judge for another: and the advice here given seems strange advice.

If advice only had been given, I should have doubted of making Stoner and Company liable: but this was not mere advice. They accommodated Captain Martin with every thing; and, having helped him to sell his salmon at an under value, they loaded his ship on an adventure of their own, and sent it back to Scotland.

This seems the real cause of the transaction: Messrs Stoner and Company would not suffer Messrs Richardson and Company to speculate forwards to Venice; but they took this chartered ship, and speculated baekwards to Scotland.

It is said, “that part of the salmon was damaged.” What then? 1st, The qnantity might be about one-fifth of the whole. 2d, Not damaged to the amount of 20 per cent. 3d, This not known when the cargo was sold at Cadiz.

On the 20th November 1783, “The Lords found Messrs Stoner and Company liable;” adhering to Lord Elliock's interlocutor.

Act. A. Wight. Alt. Ilay Campbell, A. Tytler.

Diss. Justice-Clerk, Kennet, Alva.

Non liquet, Westhall.