Page images


sufficient, however, if the plaintiff produce the salenote on which he intends to rely in proof of the contract, and if the defendant objects that there is a variance between the bought and sold notes, he ought to prove it by producing the other (d). A mere inaccuracy in the description of the names of the parties will not vitiate the contract, where Mistake in the mistake has not prejudiced either (e). Nor can the vendee avail himself of a variance in the sale-note delivered to him by the broker, when he has himself signed the note delivered to the vendor(s). Nor can he object to the sufficiency of the sale-note as a memorandum within the statute, though he may not have assented at the time, if he has ratified the broker's authority after the sale (g).

Evidence is admissible to show that, by a particular custom of trade, the authority of the broker expires on the day on which it is given(h). And Lord Ellenborough ruled that a seller is at liberty, by the usage of trade, to object within a reasonable time to the sufficiency of a purchaser who gives a bill of exchange in payment(i).

(d) Hawes v. Forster, 1 M. & Rob. 368.
(e) Mitchell v. Lapage, Holt, N. P. C. 253.
(f) Rowe v. Osborne, 1 Stark. N. P. C. 140.
(g) Snames v. Spencer, 1 D. & R. 32. See 4 Bingh. 722.
(h) Dickenson v. Lilwall, 1 Stark. N. P. C. 128.

(i) Hodgson v. Daris, 2 Camp. 530. [But five days were considered an unreasonable time.]

cannot bind the other.

Signature Neither of the parties(k) to the contract, though or his agene expressly authorized, nor any person who is agent

for one side only (1), can be an agent for the other party so as to bind him by his signature. Therefore, where the action was brought against the vendee in the name of the auctioneer, who had written defendant's name, by his authority, opposite to the lot purchased, the signature was decided to be insufficient(m); though it would have been good, had the action been brought in the name of the vendor-principal. But, where the vendee's name was signed in the sale-book by the clerk of the auctioneer, it was held that the case was distinguishable, and that the auctioneer could recover in an action against the vendee, as the clerk was not identified with his principal(n) Upon the same ground, it would seem that the signature of the clerk of an agent will not be sufficient as between the original contracting par


(k) Wright v. Dannah, 2 Campb. 203.

(1) Cooper v. Smith, 15 East, 103; Diron v. Broomfield, 2 Chit. Rep. 205.

(m) Farebrother v. Simmons, 5 B. & A. 333; Rayner v. Linthorne, 2 C. & P. 124 ; S. C. 1 Ry. & M. 325.

(n) Bird v. Boulter, 4 B. & Adol. 443.

(0) Ibid. [See on this point, as to sales of estates, Blore v. Sutton, 3. Mer. 237; Coles v. Trecothick, 9 Ves. Jun. 235 ; Gosbell v. Archer, 4 Nev. & Man. 485. But contra, per Hullock, B., in Henderson v. Barnewall, 1 Y. & J. 389.]


OF STATUTES RELATING TO SALES OF SHIPS. The former statutes, relating to shipping and navigation, have been repealed, and the whole law has been consolidated and amended, by certain Acts passed in the reign of his late Majesty (a).

Of Transfer generally. It is enacted, that “ when and so often as the Transfer of

property in property in any ship or vessel or any part thereof, ship must

belonging to any of his majesty's subjects, shall, of sale, &c. “after registry thereof, be sold to any other of his

majesty's subjects, the same shall be transferred " by bill of sale, or other instrument in writing con" taining a recital of the certificate of registry(6) of “such ship or vessel, or the principal contents

thereof, otherwise such transfer shall not be valid

or effectual for any purpose whatever either in “ law or equity (c).” And the bill of sale, or other written instrument, must be produced to the officers

(a) See Lord Tenterden's Treatise on Shipping, 5th ed. by Mr. Abbott. [An act however has been passed since the publication of that edition, viz. 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 55, intituled “ An Act for the Registering of British Vessels ;" which does not however expressly repeal any former acts, but consolidates and amends the law.]

(6) Of the form of the certificate of registry, see 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 55, s. 2.

(c) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 55, s. 31 ; see 6 Geo. IV. c. 110, s. 31; Rulleston v. Hibbert, 3 T. R. 406.

of customs at the port of registry or of intended registry, and the particulars of the instrument must be entered by them in the book of registry or of intended registry(d). Whenever any owner transfers his share or shares in the vessel, the same must be registered de novo(e). The registry de novo, however, need not be made, provided that the officers of customs at the port of registry indorse (f) the particulars of the bill on the certificate of registry, and give notice thereof to the commissioners of customs (g). The officers of customs at other ports than those to which the vessel belongs, may indorse on the certificate of registry the transfer mentioned in the bill of sale, after giving notice to the officers at

the port of registry (h). Where vessels, or shares, Sale with are sold in the absence of the owners, by their

known agents or correspondents, without formal powers ;-or, where from accidental circumstances bills of sale cannot be produced, or proved to have been executed ;-the commissioners may, upon proof of fair dealing, allow the registry de novo, or

out formal powers.

(d) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 55, s. 34 ; 6 Geo. IV. c. 110, s. 37. (e) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 55, s. 11; 7 Geo. IV. c. 48, s. 26.

(f) This was formerly done by the vendor. [See the form of indorsement, 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 55, s. 34.]

(g) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 55, s. 34 ; 6 Geo. IV. c. 110, s. 40. But, upon a change of property in the vessel, a registry de novo may always be granted, if desired, even in cases where the act does not expressly require it; 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 55, s. 39.

(h) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 55, s. 37 ; 6 Geo. IV. c. 110, s. 40.

indorsement (as the case may be), in order to effectuate the transfer; provided the parties give sufficient security, to produce within a“reasonable time legal powers, or to abide future claims (i).

It was formerly necessary to recite accurately the certificate of registry in the bill of sale, and any error in the recital, except a mistake apparent upon the face of it(k), vitiated the instrument (1). But it is now sufficient to recite the principal contents, and it is declared that the bill of sale shall not be void by error in the recital, provided the identity of the ship can be established (m). Even under the old acts it was decided, that an omission made by the public officers would not invalidate the sale (n).

A recital of the certificate of registry is now not Executory necessary to the validity of an executory contract or agreement for the transfer(o), as was formerly expressly required(p); nor is an indorsement of such contract on the certificate now requisite, though formerly it was held so (9).


(i) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 55, s. 41 ; 6 Geo. IV. c. 110, s. 44.
(k) Rolleston v. Smith, 4 T. R. 161; Abb. Shipp. p. 51.
(1) Westerdall v. Dale, 7 T. R. 306.
(m) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 55, s. 31 ; 6 Geo. IV. c. 110, s. 37.

(n) Ratchford v. Meadows, 3 Esp. 69; Heath v. Hubbard, 4 East, 110; Abb. Shipp. p. 52.

(0) Abb. Shipp. p. 50.
(p) 34 Geo. III. c. 68, s. 14.
(9) Mortimer v. Fleming, 4 B. & C. 120.


« PreviousContinue »