Right of shipper under bill of lading retained by him as security. When bill of lading countermandable. Construc tion of ordinary clause in bill of lading. board "the Jane," signed by defendant, dated the 1st of January, 1883. 2. 50 bales of cotton were delivered in a damaged condition. Particulars of damage 50 bales at £2. The plaintiff claims £100. £100 0 0 Shipper against Shipowner on a Bill of Lading for Damage and 1. The plaintiff has suffered damage by breach of contract by bill of lading of goods shipped by the plaintiff signed by the master of the ship "Mary," as the defendant's agent, dated the 10th of September, 1883. 2. 50 quarters of wheat were delivered in a damaged condition, and 100 quarters were not delivered. Behrend, 3 E. & B. 622.) The 18 & 19 Vict. c. 111, provides (sect. 2), that the extension which the Act gives to the rights and liabilities of indorsees shall not affect the right of stoppage in transitu. Where the bill of lading is negotiated by way of pledge, the right to stop in transitu remains subject to the pledgee's right in respect of his advance. (In Re Westzinthus, 5 B. & Ad. 817; Kemp v. Falk, 7 App. Cas. 573.) Upon the sale of goods, where the shipper takes and keeps in his own hands a bill of lading making the goods deliverable to the shipper's order, with the intention of protecting himself, the effect of his so doing is to preserve to him a hold over the goods until the vendee has fulfilled or has been ready and willing to fulfil the conditions of the sale, and the hold so preserved is not merely a right to retain possession till these conditions are fulfilled, but involves in it a power to dispose of the goods on the vendee's default, so long at least as he continues in default. (Ogg v. Shuter, 45 L. J. 44 App.) A bill of lading after indorsement is countermandable before actual delivery thereof, or of the goods to the indorsee, but after the indorsement and delivery of the bill of lading and invoice of the goods as security against bills which are to be drawn by the indorsers on the indorsees, the indorsers cannot, after having obtained the acceptances, and whilst the balance of accounts is in favour of the indorsees, countermand the delivery of the goods; and the master of the ship would be liable in trover if he acted under any such countermand. But semble aliter if the balance of accounts was in favour of the indorsers. (Haile v. Smith, 1 B. & P. 563.) Construction of]-The clause in a bill of lading by which the shipowner is not liable for rust, breakage, or leakage is limited to the injury to the goods damaged by their own rust, breakage, or leakage, and does not protect him from an action for damage by rust, breakage, or leakage of the goods of one person to those of another person. (Thrift v. Youle and Co., 46 L. J. 402, 2 C. P. Div. 432. See further Hayes v. Culliford, 4 C. P. Div. 182.) 1. The damage and loss occurred from the bad condition of the goods when received. 2. Alternatively the damage and loss occurred by reason of the excepted perils mentioned in the bill of lading, that is to say, the perils of the seas (or fire, or as the case may be). Action by Indorsees on Bill of Lading for Price of Goods Sold as Part of Cargo of Stranded Ship. 1. A. B., upon a contract by a bill of lading, signed by the master of the ship "Emerald," the defendant's agent, shipped goods, namely, four bales of silk, to be carried in the said ship by the defendant from Riga to Hull. The bill of lading has been indorsed by A. B. to the plaintiff. 2. The ship stranded on her voyage to Hull, and the defendant sold the said four bales of silk at C—, and received the purchase-money, which amounted to £100. 3. The plaintiff is indebted to the defendant in the sum of £50, under a claim for losses in respect of general and particular average and other particular charges in respect of the said ship, her freight, and cargo. The plaintiff claims £50 as the balance. Bonds (a). Action on an Annuity Bond. 1. The plaintiff's claim is for principal and interest due upon the defendant's bond to the plaintiff, dated the 1st of (a) A bond is a contract under seal to pay a stated sum of money. It is either absolute, in which case the obligation to pay the money is January, 1883, and conditioned for payment to the plaintiff of £150 half-yearly, on the 1st of July and the 1st of January in every year during the life of the plaintiff. 2. Two instalments, of £150 each, due on the 1st of July, 1883, and the 1st of January, 1884, are due and unpaid. 1. The bond is not the defendant's bond. 2. Alternatively the defendant made payment to the plaintiff on the days appointed according to the condition of the bond. 3. Alternatively the defendant gave the bond in consideration of the plaintiff's promise to allow a criminal intercourse between her and the defendant to continue. absolute; or conditional, in which case the money is only payale conditionally, and ceases to be payable or absolutely payable on the happening or doing of a certain thing, e.g., the payment of a less sum or the due performance of certain duties. If the condition is entire and unlawful, the bond is void (Collins v. Blantern, 1 Sm. L. C. 325); but if the condition is severable and part of it is good, the bond is valid to that extent. (Yale v. Rex (in error), 6 Br. P. C. 61.) In the case of alternative conditions, if one becomes impossible the other, as a general rule, becomes absolute. (Da Costa v. Dares, 1 B. & P. 242.) If the condition be impossible at the time of making it, or uncertain or insensible, the condition is void and the bond unconditional. Blackstone's Commentaries by Stephen, II. p. 107. No precise form of words is necessary to create a bond so long as there is a writing under seal, acknowledging a debt, or denoting an intention on the part of the person who becomes bound (obligor) to pay another (obligee) a specified sum of money, this is sufficient to constitute a bond. Thus, "I, A. B. have borrowed £10 of C. D.," or "Memorandum that A. owes B. £10," are sufficient. (See Addison, Contr. 7th ed. 171.) It is of course usual to introduce the words, "to be held and firmly bound," but neither these nor any other formal words of a similar kind appear to be necessary. If no time is limited in a bond for payment, the money is payable on demand. By the C. L. Proc. Act, 1852, s. 96, although judgment in actions on bonds might be entered up for the penalty, execution might only issue for the damages assessed by the jury. Action on a Bond to Secure the Performance of Duty, and against Defalcations in Accounts. 1. The plaintiff's claim is for money and interest due upon the defendant's bond for £2000 to the plaintiff, dated the 1st of August, 1883, conditioned that if J. B. C. would faithfully discharge the duties of managing clerk to the plaintiff, and honestly account for and pay over to the plaintiff all moneys coming to his hands on behalf of the plaintiff during his service as such managing clerk, the bond should be void. 2. The said J. B. C., on September 15, 1883, and during his said service dishonestly appropriated to his own use £350, the moneys of the plaintiff. 1. Before the 15th of September, 1883, J. B. C. misappropriated other moneys of the plaintiff, who, knowing of such previous misappropriations, continued to employ J. B. C. in his service without notice to the defendant; and the sum of £350 (if misappropriated at all by J. B. C.) was misappropriated during such continuance of the said service. 2. Alternatively J. B. C. did not misappropriate the said sum of £350, or any part thereof. Breach of Contract. See Sale-Stock-Work and Labour. Action for Breach of Agreement by Defendants to make a Propeller Shaft, claiming Special Damage. 1. The plaintiff has suffered damage by the defendant's (a) See Philips v. Foxall, L. R. 7 Q. B. 666, and Sanderson v. Aston, L. R. 8 Ex. 73, as to this defence. breach of a written contract to make and deliver to the plaintiff on the 15th of November, 1883, at the Surrey Commercial Dock, a new brass liner to the propeller-shaft of the S.S. "Rio Tinto," and a new brass stern-bust for the same, both to be of best quality and workmanship. 2. Before the said contract was made, the defendant had notice that the plaintiff had contracted with the owners of the said ship to repair and refit the said ship by the 24th of November, 1883, and that if the defendant should not perform his said contract the plaintiff would be unable to perform his contract with the said owners, and would be liable to pay to them £300 for liquidated damages. 3. The new brass liner, and new brass stern-bust delivered by the defendant, were of bad quality and workmanship, and unfit for use. 4. By reason of the defendant's breach of contract the plaintiff was unable to perform his said contract with the said owners; and in an action brought by them against the plaintiff to recover the said sum of £300, and which the plaintiff defended at the request of the defendant, the plaintiff was ordered to pay £300 damages, and £87 for costs to the said owners, and the plaintiff paid them. Particulars of special damage : Damages paid to the owners Paid their costs as taxed. Plaintiff's costs of defending the action brought by the owners £300 0 0 87 0 0 103 0 0 1. The defendant never had any notice of the plaintiff's alleged contract with the owners of the S.S. "Rio Tinto," or any other contract, or that the plaintiff would be liable in any |