9911796707
TMI Blog1880 (2) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em a large number of gunny bags in the months of April and May 1878. The time for taking delivery of these bags had been extended at the request of Messrs. Cohen; and on the 22nd July there remained 107,500 bags still undelivered. 4. The defendants had been pressing Messrs. Cohen to take delivery of these bags; and on the last-mentioned day Mr. Cohen, a member of the firm, called at the office of Messrs. Macneill and Co., the defendants' agents. He informed them that he had arranged to take delivery of 57,500 bags, and he then made a further contract for the purchase of 30,000 twilled bags. Accordingly, on the following morning, the 23rd July, the defendant Company sent to Messrs. Cohen delivery orders £675] for the 57,500 bags, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that would not be enough, because he wished the bearer personally to get delivery; and therefore Mr. Lyall wrote these words upon the letter,--"the bearer of this will personally take delivery of each lot as required." Mr. Lyall states that he had no conversation with Ramrutton and that this was substantially all that passed. 7. Ramrutton, on the other hand, says, that he told Mr. Lyall, that Roop Chund Samareemull, one of the plaintiff's, wanted the paper signed by Mr. Lyall as a guarantee for the 87,500 bags; and that if he signed it, the plaintiffs would advance ₹ 15,000 to Cohen; so that, according to his evidence, Mr. Lyall had notice of the whole arrangement between the plaintiffs and Messrs. Cohen. This fact of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the delivery of the bags to him, was quite sufficient, as it seems to us, coupled with the other circumstances of the case, to have fully apprized Mr. Lyall of what he was really asked to do. 8. The delivery orders which had been sent on the morning of the 23rd would have enabled any servant of Messrs. Cohen to obtain delivery of the goods upon paying for them. It would have been quite unnecessary to ask Mr. Lyall as a favour to deliver the goods to any of Messrs. Cohen's servants; and Mr. Lyall knew that perfectly well. The favour which Mr. Cohen asked was to obtain an order for delivery to the plaintiffs, with whom he was making the arrangements; and we think that Mr. Lyall must, as he ought to, have known that this was Mr. Cohen& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... means of confirming. 11. In that case, as in this, no actual appropriation of the goods had been made to the original purchaser; and the point was taken, as it has been here, that as there had been no severance of the particular goods, no property in them had passed to the vendees; but the Court considered that as the delivery orders had been assented to by the defendants, the latter were estopped from denying that they held the goods, answering to the description in those orders, at the disposal of the person to whom the orders were given. 12. The case of Knights v. Wiffen (L.R., 5 Q.B., 660), is. to the same effect, and there also no appropriation of the goods had been made to the original purchasers at the time of the transfer. 13. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "estoppels," in the sense in which the term is used in English legal phraseology, are matters of infinite variety, and are by no means confined to the subjects which are dealt with in Chap. VIII of the Evidence Act. A man may be estopped, not only from giving particular evidence, but from doing acts, or relying upon any particular arguments or contention, which the rules of equity and good conscience prevent his using as against his opponent. A large number of cases of this kind will be found collected in the notes to Doe v. Oliver (2 Smith's L.C. 8th edn., pp. 775 et seq) and whatever the true meaning of Section 2 of the Evidence Act may be as regards estoppels which prevent persons from giving evidence, we are clearly of op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
