The Bank Of Bengal V. The Jaffna Trading Company

1913 Present: Wood Renton A.C.J. and Ennis J.

THE BANK OF BENGAL v. THE JAFFNA TRADING
COMPANY.

149-D. C. Colombo, 32,193.

Bill of lading-Rights of holder-English law-Separate action for damages for wrongful sequestration-Civil Procedure Code, s. 659- Estoppel-Agent for collection.

The right of the holder of a bill of lading to the possession of goods to which it relates, and his qualified power to sell such goods, are governed by English and not Roman-Dutch law.

Section 659 of the Civil Procedure Code contains no machinery for the trial of actions for damages; it does not bar a regular suit for damages for wrongful sequestration before judgment.

THE facts are set out in the judgment of the Additional District Judge (L. Maartensz, Esq.):-

The plaintiff bank in this action seeks to recover the sum of Rs. 1,863 as damages sustained by it by reason of the wrongful sequestration by the defendant of a consignment of rice, of which the plaintiff was the endorsee of the bill of lading.

The parties went to trial on the following issues, namely :-

(1) Is the plaintiff a duly incorporated banking corporation ?

(2) Was the bill of lading of the shipment of rice in question endorsed and delivered for value by Govindasamypillai to the plaintiff bank ?

(3) Was the sequestration and detention of the rice under the order in D. C. Colombo, C 31,766, wrongful and unlawful, and if so, what damage, if any, has the plaintiff bank sustained ?

(4) Is the plaintiff bank precluded from claiming damages caused by the sequestration in D. C. 31,766 by the operation of section 659 of the Civil Procedure Code ?

(5) Is the plaintiff bank precluded from claiming for all or any of the items A, B, and C in paragraph 9 of the answer by reason of its having failed to claim the same in D. C. Colombo, 31,766 ?

(7) Did the endorsement of the bill of lading transfer the property covered by the bill to the plaintiff so as to entitle the plaintiff to recover the damages claimed ?

(8) Was the sequestration adverse to and inconsistent with the plaintiff bank's claims to or rights in the rice, and if so, did not the plaintiff bank incur the expense by reason of its failure or neglect to comply with the defendant company's proposal contained in the letter of the defendant company's proctor to the plaintiff bank's proctor of December 10 1910?

(9) Did the plaintiff bank procure the release of the rice from the sequestration ordered in D. C. Colombo, C 31,766 ?

The shipper of the rice in question was One Banchikal Abichan; he had endorsed the bill of lading in blank and delivered it to Govindasamy. The rice was consigned to Niles, and shipped at Rangoon for transport to Colombo.

Govindasamy endorsed the bill of lading in blank and delivered it to the Rangoon branch of the Bank of Bengal, and the bank paid lam Rs. 4,790 annas 15 for the bill of lading. The amount was not paid in cash, but Govindasamy's account was credited with that amount of this sum, Rs. 4,780 was paid to the shipper Banchikal Abichan on a cheque drawn in his favour by Govindasamy.

The Bank of Bengal specially endorsed the bill of lading to the Bank of Madras, Colombo, and sent it with a bill of exchange drawn against the consignee Niles to the Colombo branch of the Bank of Madras for collection. Niles refused to pay the amount due on the bill of exchange, and it was noted for non -payment on December 3, 1910, and the rice was advertised for sale on December 8.

On November 25 the defendant company filed an action, D. C Colombo, 31,766, against Govindasamy, and on the same date applied for and obtained a mandate directing the Fiscal to seize and the consignment of rice. On December 6, 1910, the defendant obtained an order authorizing the Fiscal to sell the rice and bring the proceeds into Court.

On December 29, 1910, the Bank of Madras filed a claim to the property sequestered.
 
On December 30,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document