A BAILEE'S RIGHTS

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue 7389, 15 February 1902, Page 3 (Supplement)

A BAILEE'S RIGHTS

IMPORTANT DECISION.

A decision of general interest was given by the Court of Appeal last Monday in the appeal by the Post-master-General from Sir Francis Jeune's decision in the case of the Winkfield. That vessel collided wilh and sank on sth April, 1900, the Mexican, which was carrying passengers, mails and cargo from Capetown to England. The owners of the Winkfield admitted liability for a moiety of the damage, and paid into Court £32,514. The Registrar, assisted; by merchants^ assessed! the claims put forward against this fund, and allowed the Postmaster-Gener-al's claim for the amounts which he had had to pay for claims actually put forward against him by the owners of registered letters and parcels lost in the wreck, but rejected so much of his claim as represented the amounts in respect of which no such claim had yet been put forward by the owners. Sir Francis Jeune, following the decision in Claridge v. South Staffordshire Tramway Co. (1592, IQ., B 422), held that the Registrar's -ruling must be sustained on the ground that the Postmaster-General, representing th» Crown, was not entitled to recover the vahie of the letters and parcels lost, as he was not liable to th^ owners of them. This decision the Court of Appeal has Just reversed, holding that the Claridge case was wrongly decided, on broad principles that will commend themselves to lawyers and commonsense reasons that will appeal to laymen. After a careful examination of the authorities on the law of bailments, the Court of Appeal came to the conclusion that the law is that in an action against a stranger for loss of goods caused by his negligent^, the bailee in possession can recover the value of the goods, although he would have had a good answer to an action by the bailor *or damages for the loss of the thing bailed. The root principle is that as against a wrongdoer possession is title. The chattel that has been converted or damaged is deemed to be the chattel of the possessor and of no other, and therefore its loss or deterioration is his loss, and to him, if he demands it, it must be recouped. His obligation to account to the bailor comes in after he has carried his legal position to its logical consequence against a wrongdoer, and serves to soothe a mind disconcerted by the notion that a person -who is not himself the complete owner should be entitled to receive back the full value of the chattel converted or destroyed. There is no inconsistency between the two positions; the one is the complement of the other. As between bailee and stranger possession gives title — that is, not a limited interest, but absolute and complete ownership, and he is entitled to receive back a complete equivalent for the whole loss or deterioration, of the thing itself. As between bailor and bailee the real interests of each must be inquired into, and, as the bailee has to account for the thing bailed, so he must account for that which has become its equivalent and now represents it. What he has received above his own Interest he has received to the use of his bailor. The wrongdoer, having once paid full damages to the bailee, has an answer to any action by the bailor. i