Legal Research
Cases
Martin v Hogan

Martin v Hogan

Case [1917] HCA 75 20 December 1917

Statutory Interpretation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

24 CLR 234

MARTIN AND ANOTHER

DEFENDANTS, HOGAN

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Contract-Sale of goods-Construction- F.o.b."- -Price payable on delivery of

documents-Bill of lading-Shipping receipt-Tender of documents-Recovery of price-Damages-Passing of property-Pleadings-AmendmentNet point SYDNEY,

raised on appeal to High Court-Sale of Goods Act 1893 (56 &57 Vict. c. 71), Nov. 23, 26,

secs. 1, 16, 18, 49, 50, 55. 27, 28; Dec.

The plaintiff and the defendants in Sydney entered into a contract whereby the plaintiff agreed to sell and the defendants to buy 50 tons of chaff at £6 5s. per ton, f.o.b., shipped in New Zealand during June or July 1915 as freight was available. The terms as to payment were "cash against documents," and as to insurance buyers instruct." An action was brought in the Supreme Court of New South Wales by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking to recover the price of the chaff. In one count of the declaration the terms of the contract were set out, and it was alleged that the chaff was duly shipped in accordance with the contract, that the plaintiff had tendered to the defendants the documents mentioned in the contract, and that all things had happened and all times had elapsed necessary to entitle the plaintiff to maintain the action, yet the defendants did not and would not pay the plaintiff for the chaff and the price remained wholly due to the plaintiff and unpaid. To this count the defendants pleaded that it was a term of the agreement that the plaintiff should deliver to the defendants the bill of lading and other documents relating to the chaff and that the plaintiff did not tender or deliver the bill of lading or any of the other documents. At the trial before a jury evidence was given that a parcel of chaff, which had been shipped in New Zealand within

24 CLR 235

the time specified in the contract by F. &R. consigned to Sydney to their own order, and there sold to C. &McF., had been purchased by the plaintiff from C. &McF., and that in performance of his contract with the defendants he tendered to them certain documents relating to this chaff including a shipping receipt called on its face a bill of lading. At the close of the plaintiff's case the defendants moved for a nonsuit on the ground that the document last mentioned was not in fact a bill of lading and that the contract required a tender of a bill of lading. The plaintiff's case was then reopened and evidence was given to show that a document in the form of the shipping receipt was usual in the trade instead of a bill of lading. The defendants then moved for a nonsuit on the ground that the plaintiff's only remedy was in damages, but the Judge refused to nonsuit. The jury found in answer to specific questions that a document in the form of the shipping receipt was usual in the trade, and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Martin v Hogan

Details

AGLC: Martin v Hogan [1917] HCA 75
Case: [1917] HCA 75
Decision Date: 20 December 1917

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Martin v Hogan* involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned a contract for the sale of 50 tons of chaff, where the plaintiff, Hogan, agreed to sell the chaff to the defendants, Martin and Buhmeyer, at a price of £6 5s per ton, f.o.b., to be shipped from New Zealand during June or July 1915. Payment was stipulated as "cash against documents," and insurance was to be arranged at the buyers' instruction. Hogan sued to recover the price of the chaff, alleging due shipment and tender of the required documents. The defendants denied liability, primarily on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to tender a proper bill of lading and other relevant documents.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the document tendered by the plaintiff constituted a valid bill of lading or an acceptable substitute under the contract, whether the plaintiff's remedy was for the price of the goods or for damages for non-acceptance, and whether the property in the goods had passed to the defendants. The defendants also raised arguments concerning the sufficiency of the shipment and the appropriation of goods to the contract, though the court considered whether these arguments were properly pleaded and preserved for appeal.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Barton, Gavan Duffy, and Powers JJ., held that, on the pleadings and in light of the conduct of the case at trial, the plaintiff was entitled to retain the verdict. The court reasoned that the defendants' primary defence rested on the assertion that a proper bill of lading had not been tendered, and evidence was admitted to show that the document provided was the usual form of contract of carriage in the trade and was commonly accepted in lieu of a formal bill of lading. The court found that the jury's findings, when considered with the evidence and the admissions on the pleadings, supported the plaintiff's claim. The majority also noted that the defendants had not properly raised certain objections at earlier stages of the proceedings, limiting their ability to advance them on appeal.

The High Court affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, dismissing the appeal. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to recover the price of the chaff as awarded by the jury.

Orders