Wood v. Roach
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- Nourse v. Riddell (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1956)
- Fox & Bro. v. Willis & Bro. (Tex. 1883)
- Harrison v. Hixson (Ind. 1837)
- Grier v. Grier (Supreme Court of the United States 1786)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
The facts which the Jury must decide, are—1st. Whether a bill of lading was signed as the defendants *182 contend. 2d. Whether the goods were consigned for the use of the consignee, or consignor. 3d. Whether a real debt was due from the consignor to the consignee. These being determined, the law is clear, that a consignor can stop the goods in transitu only in two cases, 1st. Where he has received no consideration ; And, 2d. Where the consignee is insolvent. If the goods were not vested in the consignee, the defence, arising from the demand of freight and indemnification, is not sustained. The captain has received his freight in Ireland, and received an indemnification from the consignee. He might have pleaded this ; and as he has not done so, the matter is left open to equitable considerations. The freight, in strictness, is due when the goods are la den and bills signed. This is a rule founded on mercantile principles, and the inconveniences of the opposite doctrine. The cause, therefore, in the opinion of the Court, depends principally, upon this fact, whether, at the time of the attachment, the property of the goods was vested in the consignor, or consignee.
Verdict for the plaintiff.
The Chief Justice, being absent.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.