Shanghai, Sept, 27th.
Before J, C. Myers, Eeq., Consul-General, and D. Hirer Low Associates, G. D. Wzpe F. H. B, Jevxrys v. E, M. Saar, Mr, Esares appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. Hannes appeared for the defendant.
This was an action for the delivery of the original Title Deed of the Wei Foonan Roads, and to recover damages for the property, at the junction of Canton and same being withheld.
Mr. Eases in opening the proceedings said there were some peculiarities in the case. In the first place the circumstance under which it commenced had changed entirely; perhaps not entirely but ina great measure. It was commenced to induce—the particular circumstances would be fully explained in the plead-inge—the production of a certain Title Deed, and also damages for withholding the same.
ince the institution of the proceedings the Jo Deed had been produced, not of this virtually the suit now was for damages alone.
Consulate, but at the British Consulate, ad so about words and. not facto, As he had Mr, Eames thought they were quibblin He then read the pleadings.
The plaintiff in his previously stated, the petition was originally or the production of the original Title Deed, and damages for its detention by the defendant, The transfer of the title having been agit forth, inthe tne it paragraph, that he and the completed, the question of damages only r ScnOn of stoat the 2th day' of January, 1675, the trey fu do for the defend-peculiar, Uj tively late period ined to'bo tried. The whole case was plainti sold to the defendant "Tot of land witha portion Of" the buildings therees, known so the ""Wel Yuen liar. toa corny tively lat they lad been trying ant what they undertook to do for him—to complete the Title Deed. It seemed to him there were some, peculiar questions raised by the defendant's answer. It was stated in the first place, and no doubt. correctly stated, that it was not necessary to obtsina new Title Deed in order to complete the transfer of the property, but it seemed to him that Mr. Smith had a right to and would insist on complete and perfect deed, git property a between wand the sad Wardell sad and in order to enable the plaintiff to give a clean title he should have taken out a new deed.
property to the defendant, as he is bound to do, to make 8 proper transfer The conditions of sale were before the Court, tele necomary for him to obtain a new Title Deed of and nothing was said in them about any power aid property vesting the same in him as solo owner, according to the terms of said decree, and in order of attorney. All that was said in them was Obtain such new Title Deed, the original Title Deed that the plaintiff was to procure the transfer must be surrendered, of the property. The first mention of an:
—Said original Title Deed is in the possession under the control of the poor of attorney, wae la, the letter which bound to deliver the same lad been deposited in the Hongkong & Shang. hai Bank, and which in all probability was drawn up' by the defendant himself, Strictly speaking that was not a contract, but it ad the effect of a contract after the pro-lat cane a perty was bought and sold under it, and Hea tides SSS it was for the plaintiff to clear himself of iret tug met it in some way or other. That he had Sogn eerS.S Staontie Saecn SES ie Sale ae Te mao accomplished. A suit was heard in that Court
Roto ce eer ect Sr pap one against Messrs, Wardell and Shearer after the plaintiff had failed to get powers of ala Ae BS ce ete attorney from them. A degree was granted ale alert te tans the said sum of Tls. 1,600, Shanghai currency, or Deed was surrendered to the British Conto the plaintiff and eventually the Title Behar Roa rt ise Sesh eae rt out sul. The property was then transferred, and Seen oan GS RSE hae the deposit money.returned to plaintiff. It was necessary the interests of Messrs, Wardell The defendant in his and Shearer should be cleared away and that was done. His Worship had seen plaintiff in reference to this matter, and ade yb Schutt Admits the Ist, 2nd, 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the time of the sale, in the Srd paragraph, mentioned, too asking for the old Title Deed perhaps he (Mr. Eames) had gone a little Seen a aaa rts to be delivered at this Consulate, but Consulate they had declined to Resets rier Soma 2 al pees sign away the interest of Messrs, Wardell and Shearer, and then there was nothing to be Sica adhere at larugauticte anes lets pala rhe done but teapply at this Connulate, He, there: fore, contended that if the exp these proceedings could not be reco ctly as damages they might be recovered as was an iavplied covenant for the Deed to be Yeas of the opinion that, there delivered up at the U.S. Consulate, if there was a covenant for it to be delivered anywhere. He was not in the habit of making strong remarks in regard to any defendant, but he could not help thinking that in this case Mr, Smith, in the course he had. taken, had obstructed' them in doing that which was to his own interest, namely, complete the Title Deed. Ho should argue that in the conditions of sale there was an implied duty on the defendant that he should do what was Beceanary to enable the plaintiff to obtain the ife Deed he mised to get, whereas inatead of doing so, he obstructed him, and must, therefore, take the consequence. As to imply remises, measures for damages, &c., he quote ham Vol. 1 page34 "Fiiigmeut by Chief Justice mitty on Contracts, pages 16, 17, and 18; Bing-
Parker, in Pickerings reports; Goodwin v. Smit 9 Mass, page 510; Callender v. Oclricks, 5 Bingham's new cases, page 29 and from Steven's Commentaries, Vol. Il., Tor'the delay plaintiff had been put to, by the ge 51. As to the claim for compensation defendant, it was impossible to estimate the ray subject to th coutel ofthe loss he had sustained. The plaintiff had "7—That the defendant denies that he jo or over was been detained in Shanghai a long tim bound to deliver up the same original Title Deed to the matter had been 'United States Consul-General. to have been, he would have gone away '&—Save at herein before admitted the defendant important' business, denies the allegations in the eaid petition contained.
defendant therefore prase that the petition be had gone he might have fo Giamissed with costs, and that he may have such other 1,000, and or farther relief as to the Court may seem meet. of the defendant that detained him, The Court said it appeared the Title Deed such circumstances he was entitled to had an intrinsic value, and that it had been exemplarydamages. In relation to the question surrendered at the British Consulate. of yes he directed the Court to Chitty on Mr. HAN replied that the Title Deed Contracts, pages 980 and 981; and Sedgwick had never been surrendered. It had been on Damages, page 77. There was another shown at the British Consulate. point he would raise, but it was perhaps early Mr, Eames—It has been delivered at the Yedo ea. It was one that had been raised in British Consulate to effect transfer. that Court a many times. It related Mr. Haxwgx—No, it has only been shown to costs. It had been the practice of the there to effect a transfer, Court to give, under the head of costs, only
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.