The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-08-30 00:00:00

SATURDAY.

VALIDITY OF A CORN CONTRACT.—NCURTIN AND
()TITERS V. lONIDES.—The plaintiffs were corn-merchants
in this town, and the defendants represented a firm of
Greek merchants, in London, the action being brought to
recover a sum of between £BOO and £9OO, the alleged loss
which the plaintiffs had sustained by the defendants re-
fusing to perform a contract into which they had entered
with respect to a cargo of Indian corn. The cargo was
one of Ibrail Indian corn, and shipped in a vessel called
the Aghios Nicolaos (Anglice, St. Nicholas). While on
its voyage it was sold by Mr. Lyon, a broker in Liverpool,
to the plaintiffs ; though, before they purchased it, it had
been offered to a gentleman named Mongredien, a broker
in London, who received from Mr. Lyon the names of the
ship, captain, and other particulars. Mr. Mongredien,
however, had no client at that time to whom he could sell
the corn, but it was afterwards sold to the plaintiffs, who,
of course, having it to trade in, were anxious to sell it
again, and so they wrote to Mr. Mongredien on the sth
November, 1852, to the effect that they should consign to
him the cargo of the Aghios Nicolaos at 295. 3d. per qr.,
less one per cent. for his commission. A long corres-
pondence took place between the parties, which was read.
It closed with a letter on the 20th November from Mr.
Mongredien, of which the following is the substance :

"I have finally arranged with my buyer to pay at once for
the Aghios Nicolaos, at the rate of 295., without guarantee
of condition ; immediate cash, without interest, on either
side. Enclosed is the contract ; please, therefore, on re-
ceipt, forward the documents, as the money is ready. If
you send the documents to me say how the amount is to be
remitted." A cgpy of the sale note was also sent, which
was couched in the usual terms, and was to the effect that a
cargo of Ibrail Indian corn, about 2,900 imperial quarters,
of fair average quality, shipped by Agassiz lliilessi andCo.,of
Galatz, on board the Aghios Nicolaos, had been sold by order
and for account of Messrs. M'Curtin and Ryley, of Liverpool.
The plaintiffs had intended to sell without any guarantee
of quality ; but 'Mr. Mongredien, according to the note
referred to, had inserted the words " fair average quality."
Mr. M'Curtin, on receiving the note, took up his pen and
struck out those words ; and afterwards wrote to Mr.
Mongredien to complain that the latter had sold on such
terms. It was pleaded by the defendants, that, in erasing
these words, the plaintiffs put an end to the contract. On
reference to Lloyd's books, they had discovered that the
vessel, after touching at Athens and Nauplia, had put
into Malta on the 28th October, and had not left that
place up to the 11th November, which, being in direct
contradiction to Mr. M'Curtin's report as to the vessel,
his (Mr. Mong,redien's) buyers declined the cargo
altogether. Mr. Mongredien added :—" I much re-
gret this, but you ought to have informed me that
the vessel had touched at so many ports, and had stayed so
long at so suspicious a place as Malta." The defendant re-
fusing to take the cargo, plaintiffs tried to get rid of it on
the best terms they could, and ultimately they sold it in
Ireland ; but, in consequence of the discredit which had
been cast on the cargo, they could not sell it without
guaranteeing the condition ; and when the vessel arrived
at Cork, as she had met with very bad weather, and the
corn was much damaged, the plaintiffs were compelled to
annul their contract with the new buyers, Messrs. Burke
Brothers, and pay back the money. The cargo was after-
wards sold by auction, but at a difference of £894 between
the price actually realised and that which would have been
realised had the defendants performed their contract. The
present action, therefore, was brought to recover that dif-
ference, or such proportion as the jury might consider the
plaintiffs entitled to.—Several witnesses were examined,
whose general evidence bore out the above statement of
facts. It was contended for the defence, that in reality no
contract could be established. If the sale note was held to
be the contract, there were no names on it : it was merely

"Sold for Mr. Curtin and Company to my prineipals."-1
His lordship concurred in the latter view. It was decided
to take a verdict for the defendants on the first and second
pleas, viz.:—that they " did not promise ; " and. second,
" never indebted ; " and to give a verdict for the plaintiffs
on the others.
This concluded the business of the assize.

NOTES, NOTICES, AND OPINIONS.