Beaman, J
[1] After having given this nice question our most careful consideration we think that in view of the recent decision of this appeal Court in Amarchand & Co. v. Ramdas (1918) 15 Bom. L.R. 890, it must be taken as settled law that a railway receipt is a mercantile document of title. That being so, we think it necessarily follows that the endorsee of such a railway receipt has sufficient interest in the goods covered by it to maintain an action of this kind. We are, therefore, of opinion that the decision of the Subordinate Judge with Small Cause Court powers was not according to law. Reversing his decision upon the point just mentioned we agree with -his findings of fact, and now order that the decree be made in the plaintiff s favour in the terms of those findings. The defendant-Company must pay all the costs.
Dolatram Dwarkadas v. The Bombay, Baroda And Central India Ry. Company
(High Court Of Judicature At Bombay)
Civil Application No. 234 Of 1913 | 12-06-1914
Advocate List
Bench
- HONBLE MR. JUSTICE BEAMAN
- HONBLE MR. JUSTICE HAYWARD
Eq Citations
- 1914 (16) BOMLR 525
- 25 IND. CAS. 380
- AIR 1914 BOM 176
- LQ/BomHC/1914/39
Head Note
RAILWAY ACT, 1908 — S. 111 — Railway receipt as mercantile document of title — 1918 Bom. L.R. 890, and subsequent decisions HELD that in view of the decision in 1918 Bom. L.R. 890, it must be taken as settled law that a railway receipt is a mercantile document of title — Evidence Act, 1872, S. 118
