Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 SALE.
Subject_3 What delivery requisite to transfer the property.

William Simpson
v.
James Henderson and Others

Date: 20 August 1786

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

[Faculty Collection, IX. 446; Dictionary, 14,204.]

Braxfield. This cause must be determined on the contract, and not on general principles. There was an appropriation of the ship at different periods.

Elliock. There is neither justice nor common sense in the plea of the creditors. They desire to take the benefit of the contract without implementing it.

Henderland. It should seem that the property was not transferred.

President. I puzzled myself as to questions of renditio, periculum, &c. But, at length, I came to an opinion. Here there is a fair contract: the creditors must implement it, and so must the shipmaster.

Monboddo. What is determined here, must be the rule in every case. Where a person employs another to perform any work for him, the property is in the employer. I should conceive that to be the case, although no money had been advanced.

On the 2d August 1786, “The Lords found that Simpson is entitled to the property of the ship, he accounting to the creditors in terms of the original contract.”

Act. W. Tait. Alt. Al. Wight. Reporter, Monboddo.

Diss. Stonefield. Non liquet, Henderland.