From this inability to negotiate the iti according to contract, considerable correspondence ensued which, om Heged, Arnold they regarded w contract as repudiated by: the k, and the other that there was repudiation and the bank did hot regard the "contract as can led. Mis Lordship then found tant "there had been breach 9
Contract en the part of the bank there was ne implied conditier should the Banque Industrielle nile the Vills, they sould request Aenhold Bris. to them throwch some other and debit" them with the ATevence in exchange, at the rales prevailing as compared with tte the contract was According to his Lordship, then had the right rater and negotiate is with such other banks thought fit.
rounds of the ap. were, briefly, that in his judi nent hie Lordship had "sone inst the weight of the ey ad that he hau misdirected him se:? the ¢vid Ten were cited from the My. MeDonald for the hank bared his cage under two headings, fires was yo repudiation by "hank, and secondly that if there ie ne repudiation. the bark wae no transnetions between the two|an honourable one," he said, in insurance compa ye given The petitioners for the Indo-ching after larch, Commenting upon the applicability receipt for the payment of the] dum Navigation Une Lag that, of this analogy of the baker, [premium on March 8, 1927, before Afssrs, during, Matheson & Coy by} Hold Bros. would have had to sch his judgment Sir Peter Grain|the fire, and the sum insured for is] fla. represented. ay Mr, Ca '3, Merling to the bank December had expressed the opinion that up to the total sum of Hankow Tis.
Franklin of Fleming, at a loss over $100,000.
Arnhold Bros. might the right te 4,500, The insurance company have Allman, and for the therefore, sought the pretext sue the bank for breach of contract, contracted "to pay or make good all of the inability of his clients and to this counsel took exception. namely, indemnify the The ease concerned the tra exchange cal Te submitted that this put Arnhold plaintiff in the event of loss by fre, tion from enses December 20,1921, to free thent-Bros. in the light of being generous and have contracted to do so up to a billed as % which were selves of this contract which would, te the bank. total sum of Hankow Tis, 4,500. have involved them in such a heavy.
Sir Henry Gollan—They set off is an entirely different contract to searched by the Chinese military: at
payment, Me contended that the $100,000 the lank were entitled to that of life assurance, which Wanhsien and found to be largely ammuni According to the imager of the bank was a French-if the contract had been carried: is a contract to pay a claim, they contracted nequainted rigid ith out against their damages for sum on the occurrence of a certain pondent to ship 25 eases contract. Was that generous? event. Here, the insurance com-needles imported from Germany with pany have contracted to pay the from Shanghai to Chuneking with "There had been dealings. of An Objection Noted assessed damage and loss done by the added right of transhipment as A somewhat similar nature between Mr, MeDonald then dealt with the fire, the shipper save fit, the Tientsin branches of the two the judge's notes on the case ant The assessors of the insurance A clause of their bill of lading: was ch night well have maintained that there was company have assessed the loss and the Court which pro-Auenced the nce on various points, some damage done by the fire at Hankow vided th fines and expenses Anil he asked the court to bear of them being taken on statements Tls. 4,006.16, that is, the sum re-from x detention of mind that any' repudl tion of the of the counsel for Arnhold Bro: quired to indemnify the plaintiff and incomplete o contract by the ynager_meant He asked leave to put in certain put him in the same position in incorrect description of the goods in Fratuitously throwing away over correspondence hetwween the Tie which he was before the fire. The the packages on the bill of Indingg $100,000, tsin branches of the two parties plaintiff has agreed to that assess-should be paid by the defendant, Mr, MeDonald dealt with the! as proof of the method of business ment. The sum has not yet been The 1s vs claimed that they evidence of Mr. Charles Edward between the parties. Mfr. Holboroy tendered to the plaintiff, therefore stépned the seeds Crom Shanghai to Peaevek, who had been manager of objecting to this as irrelevant or, there has been no tender. There Tehang on the str. Siang Wo for rakold Brus. in Canton at the time relevant, proving nothing, as, will be judgment for the plaintiff final shipment to Chungking. At in question. This evidence hae hel ply the means by which for Hankow Tls. 4,006.16 and costs, two in I contracts were are was placed aboard been taken commission Grounds of Appeal str. Kintang of the China Mankow, under examination by 3 settled, the court supported him, Navigation Ca. for the vest of the Sherwin, retained by Arahold and the correspondence was not.
Appellants asked for a reversal' journey: to Chungking, Bros. Mis clients had not been admitted. The president noted an this decision on the grounds that represented and had been unable to objection by counsel on this (1) the Judge had not decided the Als, 10,000 Delay: creas-examine or object, ax there] Mr. MeDonald after further as to the currency in which the: The petitioners claimed that when was only one firm of selictars ations of precedent brief sum of Hankow Tls. 4,000.16 was to air Kintang arrived at Wane Mankow, and they had not thought summed up. Mr. clu Pac de Mar-bbe paid; (2) the Judge was wrong in hsien she was examined and inspect worth while Wo vend a lay: soulies explained te the court holding that the said sum had not ced by the Chinese military as is the from Shanghai specifically for how action auch as that taken by been tendered to respondent and usual custom and it was found that purpose. Part of the evidence of Arnhold Bro, might appear to the: that there had been no tender; (3) the 25 eases of needles were larges Mr. Peacock, counsel submitted, mind of a French bank manager the Judge was wrong in holding that ly ammunition with the result that was inadmissible, and ho went versed in French Taw. According the policy in question was an entire-dine to the delay that followed the to say that some statements used to French Law and equity. he said, ly different contract to that of life tioners were damaged to the in the original judgment were not there was a stipulation known as insurance inasmuch as, the amount extent of Tls. 10,000, evidence but statements made by enrichment eave cause' of the loss having been assessed and a second beaune of action the counsel for Arnhold Bros. whereby aman mutt show that agreed, the contract was of the sam tioners cite that according to money he has received has been in nature as a contract of life insurance No Repudiation by Bank other clause of the bill of Inding, compensation for some work on his.
Insofar as concerned the question of the defendant alone was linble for dent at length with the cor-part. Tu French Taw, he maintain-the currency in which the sum due Fespondence exchanged between the d, Arnhold Bros," had been waxes sustained by either should be paid; (4) the Judge was} shipment of any dangerous. two parties and endeavoured enriched by a sam which woul wrong in holding that the question show that there had een no inten-have crime to the bank: they had wot beings declared and bree the currency in which the pretion to repudiate on the part of been enriched without cause. iously arranged for shipment, In ium was paid and when it was paid of tha bank manager, and even Without calling upon Mr, Mole ix case, the petitioners chumed, by respondent did not arise and that fendant failed to declare the questioned Arnhold Bros." inten horn for Armhold Bros. the bench. there was no need to consider it correctly: and did not are to cancel the contract, ax she. after brief consnttation, declared inasmuch as such questions, though in the correspondence, The cor: against Mr. MePonald and the range with the company to transport not conclusive on the point of what} arms and ammunition, respondence, he maintained, showed no hardship suffered by Arn} Bros. owing to the bank's inability to negotiate the bills.
'The bank had been prepared to! aflow Arnhold Bros. to negotint: bills through a third party, but on the grounds that it would' be a ad precedent. Is this a true and honest letter? he asked, and inferred that the precedent was' not the real reason but the desire to save $100,000. When the bank realized that Armhold Bros. were endeavour: ing to cancel the letter, he everything the behaviour of the bank manager had favoured Arnhold Bros. Who: however, Arnhold Bros. understood that the hank was prepared to ful its contract, they replied that they] had made' other arrangements, to that date they had negotiated no other bills.
When the bank realized the xvavity of the situation, they rethe cumtraet be carried out. From their point of view there had been cancellation or repudiation. None of the correspondence in its Sir Henry Gollan:—Is there any necessity for Arnhold Bros. to inform the hank of their other arrangement.
Counsel replied that, ins there was not. The pre cked whether the wording of the letters by which Arnold Bros, alee that ther cancelled the contract might not polite eéreumboerttions," to whic counsel ayu reed.
The Helpful Bench Counsel then Dank. A formal judement writing will be delivered later.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.