Grace Brothers Limited v Lawson [1922] HCA 46

130 HIGH COURT

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

GRACE BROTHERS LIMITED . 5 . APPE

PLAINTIFF,

AND

LAWSON Drrenpant,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

H.C. or A. Bailment—Goods stored for reward—Delivery by bailee to auctioneer—Sale by a 1922. —Delivery and sale procured by fraud of third person—Rights of bailee a auctioneer—Conversion—Money had and received.

Sypyry, Seer 'The owner of certain furniture sent it to the plaintifi's warehouse for st for reward. Shortly afterwards a person, falsely representing himself t

oe the owner of the furniture, instructed the defendant, an auctioneer, to | Gavan Duffy JJ. the furniture, which, he said, would be sent by the plaintiff to the defend

auction rooms. Afterwards the plaintiff, acting upon the fraudulent sentations of one of its employees, sent the furniture, in respect of wi charges for storage had been paid, to the defendant's auction rooms | such circumstances as to raise an implication that the plaintiff had no interest in the furniture and that the defendant should account to the for it. The defendant sold the furniture and paid the purchase-money to th person who had falsely represented himself to be, and whom the defend still believed to be, the owner.

Held, that the plaintiff could not maintain an action against the defen

either for conversion or for money had and received. q

Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales : Grace Bros. v. (1922) 22 S.R. (N.S.W.), 460, affirmed.

AppEaL from the Supreme Court of New South Wales. On 4th June 1920 Dr. Sydney Dodds sent to Grace Bros. Li

be stored for reward, certain furniture. Later in the same mont)

31 C.L.R.} OF AUSTRALIA. 131

a person, falsely representing himself to be Dr. Dodds, went to H. ©. or A. James Robert Lawson, an auctioneer, and gave him instructions ea for the sale by auction of furniture which, he said, would be sent Grace Bros to Lawson by Grace Bros. Ltd. On 29th June one Sweeney, eas an employee of Grace Bros. Ltd. employed in the storage depart- ment of that company, by means of certain fraudulent entries in a time-sheet induced the company to send the furniture of Dr. Dodds to Lawson. At that time all the charges for the storage of the furniture had been paid. The company had frequently sent furniture to Lawson to be sold, and according to the ordinary course of business, when furniture upon which all charges were paid was sent without any special instructions, Lawson would deal with it according to the directions of the owner. Accordingly when Lawson received the furniture of Dr. Dodds he sold it by auction and paid the proceeds of the sale to the person who had falsely represented himself to be, and whom Lawson still believed to be, Dr. Dodds. Subsequently Dr. Dodds brought an action against Grace Bros. Ltd. for conversion of the furniture, and recovered judgment for £465. Grace Bros. Ltd. then brought the present action in the Supreme Court against Lawson for conversion of the furniture, claiming £622 19s. 7d. damages. The action was heard before Ferguson J. and a jury. At the hearing the declaration was, by consent, amended by adding a count for money had and received. At the close of the plaintiff's case an application by the defendant for a nonsuit was refused, and, the defendant having called no evi- dence, the jury, having found in answer to questions put to them that (inter alia) the furniture in question was the property of Dr. Dodds, by direction of the learned Judge gave a verdict for the plaintiff for £573 9s. 7d. The defendant thereupon moved before the Full Court for an order that a verdict be entered for the defen- dant or that a new trial be granted; and the Full Court upon that motion ordered that the verdict should be set aside and a nonsuit entered: Grace Bros. v. Lawson (1).