The House was asked whether the appellant railway company had delivered the goods unconditionally to the goods owner so as to lose its lien for the price of coal carriage, or was there an agreement conferring ‘a right in equity to any personal chattels or to any charge or security thereon’ under the 1878 Act.
Held: (Majority) It had not done so. The lien which it exercised, therefore, was based upon its actual possession as carrier of the goods, which was not destroyed by its contractual arrangements with the receiver or by delivery up of the goods. A lien is a mere personal right of detention and therefore requires actual possession.
The word ‘charge’ does not in its ordinary and accepted legal sense embrace a legal possessory lien even, so it would seem, if the contract gives the right of sale.
Citations:
[1909] AC 109
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Trident International Limited v Barlow; Hughes and Goodman (the Joint Administrators of Hamley Plc and Jeffrey (Rogers) Imports Limited CA 30-Jul-1999
A contractual possessory lien, coupled with a right to sell and use the proceeds to discharge the customer’s outstanding indebtedness was not a floating charge because the company did not purport to have any right to exercise any right to take . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company, Contract, Agency
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.414895
