1852. MITCHESON v. NICOL. that he had a right to have the benefit of the cabin at 31. 5s. per ton, but he was in error, and had no such right. The plaintiff insisted that he was entitled to have paid to him 77. per ton, which he alleged the authorised agents for the defendant at Bombay contracted to pay. But he also was in error, because we think the agents at Bombay were not authorised to make the contract, even if they did make it, as to which there was contradictory evidence. What is then the legal consequence? Why, that the defendant must pay, in respect of the benefit obtained by him, the fair value of such benefit, or, in other words, the current rate of freight at the time of the loading on board at Bombay, which is what the jury have found him to be liable to, under the direction of the Judge. The second objection was, that the action was brought too soon. This arose upon a piece of evidence given by the plaintiff, as follows:-The bill of lading, as has been observed, was pledged to the East India Company. After the action was brought, the bill of exchange having been paid, the defendant obtained possession of the bill of lading from the East India Company, and the goods were transferred to his name at the dock warehouse; and it was insisted that, until he got possession of the goods, he was not liable, and that at all events there was a misdirection to the jury as to this point. The possession of the goods, which the defendant then obtained, was actual possession for the purpose of sale as factor for his Bombay agent; but the possession or taking to the goods which rendered him liable to the freight was the taking to the goods and cargo brought home for him in the cabin of the ship for the purpose of obtaining the freight, and was wholly irrespective of the actual possession obtained after the action brought. This was the taking to which the learned Judge directed the attention of the jury, and we think that the jury acted under no misapprehension on the subject. The rule will therefore be discharged, and our judgment will be for the plaintiff, 1852. MITCHESON v. NICOL. Rule discharged. MEMORANDUM. In the following Vacation, Robert Matthews and Ralph Thomas, of the Middle Temple, Esquires, were respectively called to the degree of the coif, and gave rings with the motto "Hoc age." tion in 1846; the parties delayed to (2). Validity of Award. 1. Upon a reference by a Judge's Where one of the matters in dif- and if it ever did exist, whether the same had been put an end to; and, if so, at what time and on what day; and the arbitrator found by his award that, if any copartnership ever existed between them, the same was dissolved and put an end to by mutual consent and agreement on a certain day (subsequent to that mentioned in the submission), and that nothing was due from A. to B. in respect of profits:-Held, that, as the arbitrator did not find whether the copartnership did exist or not, the award was bad. Bhear v. Harradine, 269 2. A., on the one part, and B. & C. on the other, mutually referred their differences to two arbitrators, who awarded de præmissis that B. should pay to one of the arbitrators a sum of money, and that he should immediately on receipt thereof pay it over to A.-Held, in the Exchequer Chamber, that, if the subjectmatter of the award was a separate difference, it was clearly good; and that, if it was a joint matter, the award was good as regards B., since he could not object to the omission to adjudicate on C.'s liability. Also, that the direction to pay the money to the arbitrator did not vitiate the award, as it sufficiently appeared that the payment was for the benefit of one of the parties. Wood v. Adcock, 468 3. Where matters in difference in a cause involving several issues are referred to arbitration, the costs of the cause to abide the event, the award is good notwithstanding there is no specific finding on each issue, if it appear by necessary intendment that the arbitrator has disposed of all the issues. Semble, that it is otherwise where the reference is of the cause and also Where parties agree to refer, in pursuance of the arbitration clauses of the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18, a question of disputed compensation for land required by a Railway Company, and the appointment of an arbitrator on the part of the Company is signed by their secretary, an award made under that submission is valid, notwithstanding all the preliminary forms required by the statute have not been complied with, those forms being only necessary where the arbitration is compulsory. Collins v. The South Staf fordshire Railway Company, ARREST. 5 |