TMI Blog1941 (4) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quot; and a "payer for honour" in the case of negotiable instruments. The facts show that some time in May 1989 the plaintiff was the consignee of certain coils of galvanized wire which he bad obtained from a firm named Toho of Osaka and the consignors sent to the bank in Osaka, who forwarded them to the branch of the Yokohama Specie Bank in Rangoon, a bill of lading which was a document of title to the goods and a bill of exchange. On the discounting of the latter the bill of lading would pass title in the goods to the payer. When the bill of exchange arrived at the bank it was seen that there was, in addition to the name of Bholat upon it, the name of the Central Commercial Corporation as "drawee in case of need," and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration of the matter. But, as Mr. Talukdar has very properly admitted,--and could not do otherwise, -- the property in the galvanized wire coils never passed to him and the contract which he had originally entered into by reason of his accepting the draft came to an end when the draft was dishonoured on 20th July 1939. 2. In those circumstances the bank had recourse to the "drawee in case of need," and they first of all met with some hesitation, but it is quite wrong to say that the bill was ever dishonoured by the "drawee in case of need." It was accepted finally by the Corporation on 11th September. At that stage the position, of course, was that when the bill was met on presentation the documents of title to the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orporation were entitled to the goods. If on any date between those two dates and while the Central Commercial Corporation yet had interest in the goods by reason of the fact that they had accepted the bill drawn on them in case of need, another contract had been ever made with Mr. Bholat, he might no doubt sue the bank on that contract. 4. He has here contended up to a certain point that he was entitled at all time to the goods by reason of the fact, as he says, that there was an understanding between him and the Yokohama Specie Bank at Rangoon that there would be a settlement after instructions were received from Osaka. Learned counsel has been unable to show on his behalf when a firm contract was entered into but he has tried to rely up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at that date any longer, the owner of the coils of galvanized wire. Mr. Toho referred to his own conversations with the bank and communications with them and was obviously ready and willing that Mr. Bholat should receive these consignments and was saying so to Mr. Bholat; he was using his endeavours on Mr. Bholat's behalf and at the same time asking if he wanted goods of some other description. It is quite plain that Mr. Toho was doing his best to do further business with the plaintiff and was saying that, so far as he was concerned, he was quite ready to accept payment from the plaintiff. But the true owners of the goods, the bank, had already made a contract with another person; that contract was due to Mr. Bholat's default. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat is clear from the provisions of the two sections which I have just quoted. 7. Then the appellant is bound to say that there was some new contract entered into between the Rangoon branch of the respondent bank and the appellant, and for this purpose be relies on a letter of 22nd September which he sent to the bank. To this letter no reply was given. The letter stated that the appellant was at that stage prepared to pay the amount due on the bill of exchange and all charges provided he could get delivery of the goods. Of course, that was a mere offer which had to be accepted and for its acceptance the appellant relies on oral evidence, regarding an alleged oral acceptance by Mr. Paul. But, unfortunately for the appellant, apart from any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|