Chapman Bros v Verco Bros & Co Ltd
1933 · (1933) 49 CLR 306
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- A grain company took wheat into storage. Its only duty was to deliver an equivalent quantity of wheat later, not the same wheat. The company then became insolvent.
- Issue
- Was the depositor a , with a proprietary claim, or an unsecured creditor?
- Held
- There was no . Title had passed. The original owner had a mere unsecured claim and received nothing.
- Principle
- If the duty is to return the same quantity of identical goods, not the same goods, ownership passes. That is not a bailment.
- Why it matters
- It is the insolvency warning. South Australian Insurance Co v Randell is the Privy Council authority for the same distinction.
Words and Latin in this note
- Bailment
- A transaction in which a bailee lawfully receives possession of the bailor's goods for a purpose. Ownership stays with the bailor. It is its own source of duties, and it does not require a contract. Open the note.
- Bailor
- The person who delivers possession of goods to a bailee but remains the owner. Open the note.
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.