[1790] Mor 9553
Subject_1 PACTUM ILLICITUM.
Subject_2 SECT. XIII. Smuggling.
Date: The Attorney of Young & Co
v.
Alexander Imlach
7 July 1790
Case No.No 88.
Found in conformity with the above.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Imlach commissioned a quantity of tobacco and rum from Henry Greig, a merchant in Gottenburg, but a native of Scotland. The bill of lading bore the exception of seizure; and it was evident, that Greig knew of the goods being destined for a smuggling adventure. From his letters it appeared, that he had been looking out for a cargo of such contraband goods for Imlach's use, and that, on a former occasion, he had employed his own agents at London to make an insurance of a cargo of that sort sold by him to Imlach, against the hazard of seizure by the revenue officers, as was evinced by the amount of the premium.
The goods were seized on their arrival in the Frith of Forth, and carried into condemnation. Greig afterwards drew bills on Imlach for the value, in favour of Young and Company, his agents in London.
In consequence of a commission likewise from Imlach, John Christian, a native of the Isle of Man, who carried on trade at Dunkirk, of which town he was a burgess, shipped for him a quantity of Geneva. The bill of lading in this case, mentioned the ship's being bound for Bergen, and expressed nothing as to the hazard of seizure. It appeared, however, that Christian's agents at London had, at his request, insured part of this smuggling cargo for Imlach. The vessel carrying the goods happened to be totally wrecked in the Murray Frith.
Imlach having granted a promissory note for the value, it was indorsed to Young and Company, who were also agents for Christian. They accordingly, in the name of an attorney, brought an action against him, for payment of both parcels of goods, before the Admiralty-court, where they obtained decree. A bill of suspension was presented, which the Lord Ordinary reported to the Court, who appointed memorials on the cause.
The argument contained in them was not, in any thing material, different from that which occurred in the case of Cantley, 11th February 1790, No 87. p. 9550.
On advising the memorials, the Lords, by a small majority, passed the bill.”
Reporter, Lord Justice-Clerk. Act. Abercromby. Alt. Cullen.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting