Periculum between Mandant and Mandatary. - Postmaster, whether answerable for Money sent by Post.
Smith v. Macpherson
1791.
July1, Case No. No 36.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Macpherson at Inverness commissioned a quantity of earthen ware from Smith of Burslem, and desired that they might be sent from Burslem to Hawley's wharf, London, in packages, directed for the purchaser at Inverness, to be shipped by the first vessel for that port. Smith, on the 22d September, sent Macpherson the invoice, acquainting him, that the goods had been sent, in five packages, to Hawley's wharf, according to order. Macpherson did not write to Smith for several months; but, in the following April, he informed Smith's clerk or rider, then at Inverness, that only four of the packages had arrived, and even these deficient in several articles; That these had not come to hand till the preceding February, and that was in consequence of his causing a correspondent at London make enquiry after the goods, which were found not at Hawley's wharf, as ordered, but at a different place, lying utterly neglected, and one package amissing: In these circumstances, he refused to pay for more than he had received. Smith, in an action for the price of the whole commission, offered to prove, that he had sent the goods by the ordinary conveyance to London, directed to Hawley's wharf, and had written to Messrs Hawleys about them, desiring they might be shipped for Inverness; and there fore insisted, That they were not at his risk.—The Lords were of opinion, That Macpherson had failed in his duty, in not acquainting Smith of the non-arrival of the goods within a reasonable time after receiving the invoice, by which means he had prevented the latter from taking any measures to trace them. And they therefore found Macpherson liable for the value of the whole.—See Appendix.
