James Haig, Distiller at Lochrin v. John Napier, Esq. of Mollance [1813] UKHL 5_Paton_703a (17 June 1813)

Case
No judgment structure available for this case.

Page: 703↓

(1813) 5 Paton 703a

CASES DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, UPON APPEAL FROM THE COURTS OF SCOTLAND, FROM 1753 TO 1813.

No. 73


(Dow's Rep. vol. i. p. 259. *)

James Haig, Distiller at Lochrin,     Appellant

v.

John Napier, Esq. of Mollance,     Respondent

House of Lords, 17th May 1813.

Subject_Sale — Damages for Non-Implement.

The respondent, who is a banker in Kirkcudbright, and a

Page: 704↓

gentleman of considerable influence among his friends in that district, was applied to by the appellant, to lend him his aid and assistance in introducing his spirits into the market there. Mr. Napier did not deal in the spirit line, but consented, on the offer of the appellant, to take the forty puncheons offered, with a view of disposing of it among a few of his friends, and agreeing to give bill at three months from the date of invoice and bill of lading, “provided I have 2 ½; per cent. commission on the transaction, which I presume you will not consider an unreasonable commission for my trouble and risk. Shipped free on board at Leith.” The bargain was thus concluded. The appellant contended that, as his duty terminated by shipping the spirits on board at Leith, it was incumbent on the respondent to find a vessel. There were no regular packets plying between that port and Galloway, by which the appellant could send the spirits. He had looked out for such vessel, but could neither find such, nor any vessel at Leith which would take the cargo of forty puncheons. At last the appellant's traveller wrote the respondent, desiring a vessel to be sent for the spirits, this was agreed on. This vessel arrived in Leith, only after an additional duty had been laid on the spirits, and the appellant therefore declined to proceed with the bargain at the former price. In an action for implement and damages: Held the appellant liable in damages for failing to implement the contract of sale. Reversed in the House of Lords, and defences sustained, and defender (appellant) assoilzied.

Counsel: For the Appellant, Wm. Adam, Geo. Cranstoun.
For the Respondent, Sir Samuel Romilly, Fra. Horner.

 1813
Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0