COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

[Q. B.

of 6011. 16s. 6d., for and on account of necessary dis

Reported by JOHN THOMPSON, T. W. SAUNDERS, and C. J. B. bursements for the said ship Ann Martin, and the said

HERTSLET, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law.

Saturday, Feb. 23.

CASTRIQUE v. BEHRENS AND OTHERS. Ship-Conspiracy-Procuring sale of, abroad-Mortgagee-Bill of exchange given by master for

necessaries.

Messrs. Levien and Stenitz, without any value or consideration for such indorsement, or for the defts. becoming the owners of the said bill, indorsed the said bill of exchange to the defts., then being British subjects residing at Liverpool, in England; that the bill was duly presented for acceptance by Clauss and Co., and was dishonoured; and the defts. well knowing Declaration that C., a British subject, the owner of a the premises, and that the said vessel was about to call ship, by bill of sale transferred it, by way of mort- on her said voyage to England at the said port of Havre gage, to H., who by bill of sale transferred his de Grace, and that, by the law of France, when during a interest in the ship to E., who by bill of sale trans- voyage a bill of exchange is drawn by the master of a ferred to the plt. That while C. was owner, ship upon the owner of such ship for and on account the master, during a voyage, drew a bill on C. for of necessary disbursements for the said ship, a French necessary disbursements in favour of L. That subject, if he be the bona fide holder for value of such C. indorsed the bill to the defts., British subjects bill, but not otherwise, may, if the said ship be in any residing in England, without value. That the bill port of the said empire of France, take proceedings in was duly presented to C. for acceptance, and dis- rem in the courts of the said empire, to attach the said honoured. That the defts., knowing that the ship ship in such port, and to sell and dispose of such ship was about to call at Harre, in France, and that a for the purpose of paying such bill and the costs of such bona fide holder there of the bill could attach the proceedings, afterwards, and after the plt. had become ship, and procure the ship to be sold for the purpose and was interested in the ship, and after the bill had of paying such bill, fraudulently conspired with T., been dishonoured, falsely, fraudulently, and unlawfully a French subject residing in France, to indorse the contriving and intending to defraud the plt. of bill to him without value, that T. might attach the his property and interest in the said ship, and to ship at Havre, and obtain the sale thereof, and that cause the said ship to be sold for payment of the T. should falsely represent that he was the bonâ fide said bill of exchange, fraudulently and unlawfully owner of the bill for valuable consideration, and so conspired with one Etienne Troteux, a French subject obtain the attachment of the ship. That in pur-residing in France, that they the defts. should indorse suance of the conspiracy the defts. indorsed the bill the said bill of exchange to the said E. Troteux without to T., who, upon the arrival of the ship at Havre, any value or consideration for such indorsement, and took proceedings to attach the ship, and fraudu that the said E. Troteux should take proceedings in lently represented that he was the bona fide owner of the tribunals at Havre aforesaid to attach the said ship the bill for valuable consideration, and thereby ob- and appurtenances, and to obtain a sale of the same tained an attachment of the ship, and thereby the for the purpose of paying the said bill out of the proplt. lost his property in the ship: ceeds of such attachment and sale, and that for that purpose the said E. Troteux should falsely and fraudulently represent to the said tribunals that he the said E.

Held, that the declaration was bad, as it was consistent with the averments that the plt. had notice of the proceedings at Havre, and purposely allowed judg-Troteux then was the bonâ fide owner of the said bill ment to go by default, or that he might have appeared in the French court, and been heard on the question whether T. was holder for value; and that while the foreign judgment remained unreversed the action was not maintainable.

Declaration. That John George Clauss, of Liverpool, a British subject, was the sole registered owner of a ship, the Ann Martin, and her appurtenances, which said ship was, up to the time of the sale, as hereinafter mentioned, a British ship, and duly registered as such; and on the 30th Nov. 1854, Clauss, by bill of sale duly made and registered, assigned and transferred by way of mortgage all his estate and interest in the said ship and the appurtenances, to Thomas Harrison, who then became and was registered as the mortgagee of the ship and her appurtenances; that on the 2nd Feb. 1854, Harrison, by bill of sale duly made and registered, assigned and transferred all his interest in the said ship and her appurtenances to Richard Emley, who then became and was registered as the mortgagee of the ship and her appurtenances; and on the 9th April 1855, Emley, by bill of sale duly made, assigned and transferred all his interest in the ship and her appurtenances to the plt.; that the ship sailed from Liverpool on a voyage to Melbourne, and back again to England, called at the port of Havre de Grace, in the French empire, and one William Benson, was during the voyage the master of the ship, and in the course of the said voyage, at Melbourne, Benson drew a bill of exchange, dated the 8th June 1854, on Clauss, the then owner of the said ship,,by the name and designation of George Clauss and Co., Liverpool, requiring Clauss and Co. eight days after sight to pay to the order of certain persons by the name and designation of Messrs. Levien and Stenitz, the sum

for good and valuable consideration, and thereby falsely and fraudulently to obtain an order of the said tribunals for the attachment and sale of the said ship for the purpose of paying the said bill of exchange. That in pursuance of the said conspiracy the defts. did indorse the said bill to the said E. Troteux without any value or consideration for such indorsement, and thereupon the said E. Troteux, upon the arrival of the ship at Havre, took proceedings in the said tribunals at Havre to attach the ship and to obtain a sale of the same for the purpose of paying the bill out of the proceeds of such sale, and did falsely and fraudulently represent to the said tribunals that he was the bona fide holder of the bill for good and valuable consideration, and thereby obtained from the said tribunals orders for the attachment and sale of the said ship for the purpose of paying the amount of the said bill and the costs of such proceedings, and thereby the plt. wholly lost and has been deprived of his property and interest in the said ship and her appurtenances. Demurrer to the declaration.

Holl for the plt.-It is admitted, for the purpose of the demurrer, that this was a fraudulent proceeding by the defts. In such a case as this a writ of conspiracy would lie, according to Fitzh. Nat. Brev. 116, letter B. This was a fraudulent misrepresentation, leading to the abuse of the process of a foreign court of law, for which an action lies: (Gerhard v. Bates, 2 Ell. & B. 491; Gregory v. The Duke of Brunswick, 6 M. & G. 205.) The gist of the action is a conspiracy in England to deprive the plt. of his property in the ship, and to procure the payment of Clauss' dishonoured bill out of the plt.'s property; the overt acts of the conspiracy being the indorsement of the bill and the false representation that Troteux was the bona fide holder and indorsee. An action lies for abusing the pro

Q. B.]

CASTRIQUE v. IMRIE.

[Ex. CH.

cess of an English court, in order illegally to com- not think that the averments in the declaration show pel a party to give up his property, and it is not that this judgment in rem was obtained under such necessary to aver that the process was sued out without circumstances as to be impeachable by the present plt. reasonable or probable cause: (Grainger v. Hill, 4 It is averred, and we must on the demurrer assume that Bing. N. C. 212; Haywood v. Collinge, 9 Ad. & Ell. it is truly averred, that by the law of France the judg268; Whitelegg v. Richards, 2 B. & C. 45; Daniels ment in rem can only be obtained if the holder of the v. Fielding, 16 M. & W. 200; Farley v. Danks, 4 bill of exchange be a French subject, and a bona fide E. & B.) A fortiori an action lies for abusing the holder for value, and we must take it as admitted process of a foreign court for such an object. This was on this demurrer that Troteux, the French holder a proceeding in the French court in rem, and it does not of the bill of exchange, by the fraudulent appear that the plt. was a party in the proceedings. The procurement of the defts. falsely represented to the defts. are English subjects residing here, and if an French courts that he was holder for value when he action will not lie the plt. is without remedy. [WIGHT- was not. It is not necessary to say what would be the MAN, J.-It does not appear that the plt. could not effect if it were stated that by the contrivance of the have reversed the proceedings abroad.] No doubt, defts. the proceedings were such that the plt. had no where the judgment is relied upon as an estoppel, the opportunity to appear in the French courts and disother side may show that the judgment was obtained pute the allegation. In the present case it is quite by fraud. It is not necessary to show that the pro- consistent with the averments in the declaration that ceeding has terminated in respect of the malicious pro- the plt. had notice of the proceedings in France, and secution of which the action is brought: (Steward v. purposely allowed judgment to go by default, or even Growcett, 19 L. J. 170, C. P.) Cases cited:-Smith that he appeared in the French court, intervened and v. Tonstall, Carthew. 4; Pisani v. Lawson, 6 Bing. was heard, and that the very question whether Trottenx N. C. 90; Revis v. Smith, 18 C. B. 126; 12 Co. Rep. was a holder for value was there decided against him. 128; 2 Smith's Lead. Cas. 633, et seq.) We think, on the principle laid down in Nyas v. The Australasian Bank, 16 Q. B. 717, that the plt. cannot impeach the judgment here on such grounds, and that whilst it stands unreversed this action cannot be maintained. The declaration being thus in our opinion bad, and the defts. therefore entitled to our judginent, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of the pleas, and there must be judgment for the defts.

M. Smith (Watkin Williams with him), for the defts. -Assuming the judgment in the court at Havre to have been in rem, and that it is to be taken that the plt. had no notice of the proceeding in that court, still when the plt. seeks to impeach that judgment, he ought not to leave the matter open to speculation. The proper remedy is to get that judgment reversed: (Hughes v. Cornelius, Show. 232; 2 Smith's L. C. 604; Vanderbergh v. Blake, Hard. 194; Whitworth v. Hall, 2 B. & Ad. 695.) While the proceedings are pending abroad an action will not lie: (Farley v. Danks; Collins v. Cave, 4 H. & N. 225; Cotterell v. Jones, 11 C. B. 713; Com. Dig. "Action on Case for Conspiracy" A; Same Action on Case for Deceit, A 4; Haddon v. Lott, 15 C. B. 411; Barber v. Lissiter, 29 L. J. 161, C. P.)

Cur. adv. vult.

Judgment for the defts.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER. Reported by DANIEL THOMAS EVANS, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.

ERROR EROM THE COMMON BENCH.
Nov. 29 and 30, and Feb. 8.
(Before COCKBURN, C.J., HILL and BLACKBURN, JJ.
MARTIN, BRAMWELL and CHANNELL, BB.)
CASTRIQUE v. IMRIE.

judgment-Seizure and sale of British ship in
French port-Proceedings in rem.
C., a British subject, owner of the ship Ann Martin,
transferred her, whilst on her voyage, by bill of sale,
to H. The master had meanwhile drawn a bill for
necessaries at Melbourne, on C. in England, which
C. refused to accept, and the bill was dishonoured.
The ship having touched at Havre, the holder of the
dishonoured bill indorsed it to T. and Co., French
subjects residing at Havre, who thereupon commenced
proceedings in the court of the civil tribunal there,
against the master and against the ship. The master
allowed judgment to go against him by consent, and
was condemned to pay the amount of the bill, with
interest, and the vessel was sold-H.'s claim as holder
of the bill of sale of the ship being negatived:
Held (reversing the decision of the court below), that the
proceedings in the French court were proceedings
in rem; and, consequently, the sale under its decree
this
passed the property in the ship, and the plt. in
action was not entitled to recover.

Holl was heard in reply. CROMPTON, J.-This case was argued before my Lord Chief Justice, my brothers Wightman and Black-Foreign burn, and I heard the argument on the part of the plt. only. The demurrer to the declaration raises a question of some difficulty. There is no doubt, in principle and on the authorities, that an action lies for maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause setting the law of this country in motion to the damage of the plt., though not for a mere conspiracy to do so without actual legal damage: (see Cotterell v. Jones, 11 C. B. 713; and Barber v. Lissiter, 7 C. B., N. S., 175.) But in such an action it is essential to show that the proceeding alleged to be instituted maliciously and without probable cause was terminated in favour of the plt., if from its nature it be capable of such a termination. The reason seems to be that, if in the proceedings complained of the decision was against the plt., and was still unreversed, it would not be consistent with the principles on which law is administered, for another court, not being a court of appeal, to hold that the decision was come to without reasonable and probable cause. In the present case the proceedings were not instituted in the courts of this country; but they are stated to be proceedings in rem in the court of France. There is no direct authority on the point, but it seems to us that the same principle which makes it objectionable to entertain a suit grounded on the assumption that the unreversed decision of a court in this country was come to without reasonable and probable cause, applies where the judgment, though in a foreign country, is one of a competent jurisdiction and come to under such circumstances as to be binding in this country. A judgment in rem is, as a general rule, conclusive everywhere and on every one, and we do

In this case error was brought upon the judgment of the Court of C. B., and the case was now argued.

SPECIAL CASE.

This is an action brought by the plt. against the defts., for the recovery of a ship or vessel called the Ann Martin, together with the rigging, gearing, tackle, munitions, boats and other furniture belonging to the said ship, and which said ship or vessel, together with her said rigging, gearing, tackle, munitions, boats and other furniture are described and designated in the case hereinafter stated by the name and description of a ship called the Ann Martin and her appur tenances; and by the consent of the parties, and

During the year 1853, and from thence until the 13th Nov. 1854, John George Claus, a British subject, was the sole owner, and duly registered as such under the statutes then in force relating to the registering of British vessels of a ship called the Ann Martin and her appurtenances. The said ship during the time aforesaid was and from thence continually hath been and is a British ship, except so far as the facts hereinafter stated may in the opinion of the court have at any time deprived her of the right to be considered a British ship, and duly registered as such in pursuance of the statutes for the time being in force relating to the registering of British vessels. In Dec. 1853 the said ship sailed on a voyage to Melbourne in Australia, and from thence to Madras in the East Indies; and William Benson, who was the master of the said ship during the said voyage, and in the course thereof at Melbourne aforesaid, drew a bill of exchange on the said John George Claus, by the name and designation of George Claus and Co., in favour of certain persons resident at Melbourne aforesaid, and carrying on business at Melbourne aforesaid, by and under the name and designation of "Levien and Stenitz," of which said bill the following is a copy :

"£601 16s. 6d. "Melbourne, 8th June 1854. "At eight days' sight pay this first of exchange (the 2nd and 3rd of same tenor and date unpaid) to the order of Messrs. Levien and Stenitz the sum of 6014. 168. 6d. for value received, and which place to account of disbursements of the ship Ann Martin under my command.

"To Messrs. George Claus and Co., Liverpool.

"W. BENSON."

[Ex. CH.

by the order of Crowder, J., dated 3rd May 1859, | to the said John George Claus. And subject also to a according to the C. L. P. A. 1852, the following case further proviso, that until default should be made by has been stated for the opinion of the court without the said John George Claus in payment as aforesaid, it any pleadings. should be lawful for the said John George Claus to hold and enjoy the said ship for his own use, and to receive the profits of the same without any interruption from the said Thomas Harrison. At the time of the execution of the said deed, the said Thomas Harrison discounted the said bill of exchange for 4000l. in pursuance of the agreement recited in the said deed. The said bill of sale was duly registered at Liverpool on the 2nd Dec. 1854, and the said Thomas Harrison became and was registered as the mortgagee of the said ship and appurtenances, according to the provisions of the statutes then in force relating to the transfer and registering of British vessels. On the 2nd Feb. 1855, and whilst the said Thomas Harrison was such registered mortgagee as aforesaid, the said Thomas Harrison by bill of sale under seal, made and executed in conformity with the provisions of the statutes then in force relating to the transfer and registering of British vessels, and made in consideration that one Richard Emley then discounted the said bill of exchange for 4000l. for the said Thomas Harrison, duly assigned and transferred all his estate and interest in the said ship and her appurtenances to one Richard Emley, to and for his the said Richard Emley's own use and benefit, and the said transfer to the said Richard Emley was duly registered on the 3rd Feb. 1855, and the said Richard Emley became and was registered as the mortgagee of the said ship, and her appurtenances according to the provisions of the statutes then in force relating to the transfer and registering of British vessels. The said Richard Emley on the 9th April 1855, and whilst he was such registered mortgagee as aforesaid, by bill of sale under seal made and executed according to the provisions of This bill was never accepted by the said John George the statutes then in force relating to the transfer and Claus, and was dishonoured at maturity, and remained registering of British vessels, and in consideration of unpaid at the time of the sale of the said ship, as 4000l. stated to have been paid by him to the said hereinafter mentioned. On the 13th Nov. 1854, and Richard Emley, assigned and transferred all his estate whilst the said John George Claus was such owner, and and interest in the said ship and her appurtenances so duly registered as owner as aforesaid, the said John to the plt.; but the said transfer to the plt. was George Claus, by bill of sale under seal, made and not registered until the 13th April 1857, when the executed in conformity with the provisions of the said same was registered, and the plt. then became and was statutes then in force relating to the transfer and registered as the mortgagee of the said ship and her registering of British vessels; and reciting that one appurtenances, according to the provisions of the Thomas Harrison had agreed to discount for the said statutes then in force relating to the transfer and reJohn George Claus a certain bill of exchange, dated gistering of British vessels. On the 11th May 1855 the 25th Nov. 1854, drawn by the said Thomas Har- the said John George Claus became and was duly adrison upon and accepted by the said John George judged a bankrupt, and the said bill of exchange for Claus, payable six months after date, for the sum of 4000l. was dishonoured at maturity, has never been 4000, and that it had been agreed that the payment renewed and is still unpaid. On the 4th May 1855 thereof, or any renewal or renewals thereof which the said ship with her appurtenances arrived at the should be thereafter made, should be secured in the port of Havre, in the French empire, and thereupon manner thereinafter mentioned, duly assigned and and after the said bill for 6017. 168. 64. had become transferred all his the said John George Claus's estate due and dishonoured, Edward L. Behrens, then residing and interest in the said ship, and the appurtenances, to and domiciled in England, and the then holder of the the said Thomas Harrison, his executors, adminis- said bill, indorsed the said bill to certain persons being trators and assigns, absolutely to and for his own use French subjects residing and domiciled in the empire and benefit, subject to a proviso contained in the said of France and carrying on business under the name and deed, that if the said John George Claus should at style of Trotteux and Co., and thereupon and whilst maturity pay the said bill, or any renewal or renewals the said ship was and remained in the said port of thereof, that then the said deed should absolutely cease Havre, a suit was commenced and prosecuted by them and be void; but if default should be made in pay- against the said W. Benson on the said bill in the ment as aforesaid, that then it should be lawful for the court of the Tribunal of Commerce at Havre, and against said Thomas Harrison, his executors, administrators and the said ship, and the said W. Benson was cited in and assigns, and he was thereby empowered, without any had due notice of the said suit and appeared in the said further concurrence of the said John George Claus, court, but did not defend the said suit but allowed to absolutely dispose of the said ship and her appur-judgment to go therein by consent, and thereupon such tenances; and out of the proceeds thereof to pay, in the proceedings were had in the said Court of the Tribunal first place, certain expenses in the said deed men- of Commerce at Havre in the said suit, that afterwards tioned, and in the next place to retain the amount of on the 15th May 1855, the judgment of the said court the said bill, or such part thereof as might remain un- in the said suit was delivered and recorded in the said paid, and certain interest and commission in said deed court, of which judgment the following is a translamentioned, and to pay the residue of the said proceeds | tion:

"And whereas the bill in question was drawn by Benson in his capacity of captain of the ship Ann Martin, in payment for necessaries supplied to that vessel, and that there is occasion to grant his prayer to be protected from personal arrest.

[Ex. CH.

"At the suit of Trotteux, on a bill for 6017. 168. 6d., | the said Thomas Harrison or the said Richard Emley drawn by Capt. Benson, of the Ann Martin, at Mel- or the plt. had any interest in the said ship, and bourne, the 18th June 1854, at eight days' sight, on neither the said Thomas Harrison nor the said Richard George Claus and Co., Liverpool, and indorsed to the Emley nor the plt., were at any time before the plaintiff on the 7th May 1855: whereas the claim of said obtaining and recording of the said last-mentioned Trotteux is founded upon a regular document ema-judgment, served with any summons or process whatnating from Benson himself, and undisputed by him. soever to appear to or oppose the said proceedings before the said civil tribunal, nor had they or either of them any opportunity whatever of appearing or objecting to the said proceedings or the said judgment, or of defending their or his title to or property in the said ship and her appurtenances, except by bringing such a suit as is hereinafter mentioned to have been brought by the plt. Notice of this judgment having been given was again served upon the said William Bird, and he had another opportunity given him to appear to oppose the sale of the ship. After the delivery of the last-mentioned judgment by the said civil tribunal, the now plt., on the 22nd Sept. 1855, duly and accordingly to the law of the said empire of France, commenced and prosecuted in the civil tribunal of Havre a suit in the nature of a suit to replevy the said ship and her appurtenances, to release the said ship and her appurtenances from such custody and detention as aforesaid, and upon the hearing of the said suit before the said civil tribunal the several facts and documents herein before stated or recited were duly

"The tribunal condemns Benson in his capacity of captain of the vessel Ann Martin, and by privilege on that vessel, to pay to the plaintiff the sum of 601. 16s. 6d., and being in French money, for 15,135f. 75c., the amount of the bill drawn at Melbourne on the 8th of June last, by William Benson, payable at Liverpool, eight days after sight, signed and registered at the office (registry) of Havre, condemns him moreover to pay the interest as of right with costs."

And thereupon, and in consequence of the said judgment, the said ship and her said appurtenances were seized in the said port of Havre, in pursuance of the said judgment, by the said Court of Commerce, and detained in the custody of the said court.

said civil tribunal gave judgment in the last-mentioned suit, of which judgment the following is a translation: "The Civil Tribunal of Havre, the 19th April 1856. "The Tribunal.-Whereas Trotteux and others (joints), bearers of bill drawn by Benson, master of the English vessel the Ann Martin, on Claus and Co., who alone appeared as owners of that vessel on the certificate of registry in the possession of the captain, have caused the said captain to be condemned to pay those bills, and have in consequence caused the vessel to be seized in the port of Havre.

"That the replevy of that process in demand by Castrique and Co., bearers of a deed which, during the voyage of the Ann Martin, was entered into by Claus and Co. in favour of Harrison, assigned by Harrison to Emley, and by the latter to Castrique and Co.

"Whereas, the nature of that deed, which has been called "mortgage" according to the English law, is of little importance in the case whether it constitutes a real sale or only an apparent sale or a security, surrounded by certain particular privileges derived from the foreign law, under the authority of which it was executed, the decision must be the same.

Neither the said John George Claus, the said Tho-proved before the said civil tribunal, and thereupon the mas Harrison, the said Richard Emley, nor the plt., was at any time before the recovery of the said judgment served with any summons or process whatsoever to appear or defend the said suit, nor had they, or either of them, any opportunity whatever of appearing to the said suit, or of objecting to the said judgment, nor was it necessary by the law of France that they should be served with any summons or have any such opportunity afforded them. According to the law of France, a sale of the said ship could only take place after the judgment of the Court of Commerce was confirmed, and the sale of the ship ordered by a judgment of the civil tribunal of the district in which the said Court of Commerce was situated, and the sale would have to take place at the said civil tribunal, and in the presence of one of the judges of such court, delegated to receive the biddings and pronounce the adjudication. And the persons appearing to be the owners of the ship, by the ship's papers, were entitled to be summoned and to be heard before the said civil tribunal; and the said Trotteux and Co. accordingly caused the said John George Claus, who appeared by the ship's papers and the certificate of registry on board the ship to be the sole owner of the said ship, and William Bird, the official assignee of Claus, to be personally summoned to appear before the civil tribunal of Havre (being the civil tribunal of the district in which the said Court of Commerce was situate); and two months were given to them after they were summoned to appear; and such proceedings were instituted by Trotteux and Co. against the said William Benson, the said George Claus, and the said William Bird as such assignee in bankruptcy of the said John George Claus, that by and in default of the appearance of the said William Benson, and the said John George Claus, and the said William Bird, or either of them, in or to the said proceedings, a judgment by default was given by, and duly recorded in, the said civil tribunal of Havre on the 16th Aug. 1855, by which the said seizure of the said ship and her "That the English law contains an analogous enactappurtenances should be sold by public auction to ment, since a similar sale is only effected when it has the highest bidder, at the sittings for sales of the been recorded by indorsement on the certificate of resaid civil tribunal duly delegated by the said judg-gistry, and entered at the port of registry, shortly after ment to recover the biddings at such sale of the said ship's return.

"That the question at issue really concerns the property of a vessel sailing under the name of Claus and Co.; that it is impossible to believe that, under any commercial law whatsoever, it could be allowed that in the course of a voyage such property may be conveyed to a third party, or be mortgaged to him by way of security, without there appearing on the papers of the vessel any trace of that conveyance, or modifi cation of the property; that good faith which is the soul of commerce is contrary to such an idea.

"That the French law orders it by enacting that the voluntary sale of a vessel in the course of a voyage does not prejudice the rights of the creditors of the vendor: (article 196 of the Code de Commerce.)

made.

the said ship, and to pronounce the adjudication in "That the indorsement in this case has not been respect thereof. Neither the said Trotteux and Co. nor the said civil tribunal had any notice either by the ship's papers or otherwise, until the plt. commenced the suit hereinafter mentioned, that either

"That one of the conditions required for the validity of the sale, or of the deed upon which Castrique and Co. found their rights, has not been fulfilled.

CASTRIQUE v. IMRIE.

"That that deed cannot therefore be opposed to the | Claus and Co. appeared as holders of bills drawn in parties who have treated with Benson, representing Claus and Co.

"That as to the increase of the expenses, it may be 1854 was a real bill of sale, because it transferred the fixed at 500 frs.

"Between 1854 and 1855 Messrs. Louis Castrique and Co., the present plts., having become entitled by assignment to the mortgage in question, endeavoured to take possession of the vessel; but some creditors of | Opinion thereon. MAR, CAS.]