The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-10-18

the time being in daily Intercourse with
Lord Mansfield. who retained all of his
mental faculties. and was still Chief JUS
tce. though physical disabilities pre-
vented his attending court.
The case was this: Turing and Son. Of
New Zealand. shipped cargo OF wheat
upon the order Of Fireman. OF Rotter-
dam. to Liverpool. The captain of the
ship signed and delivered to Turing and
Son three bills Of lading. by which he
agreed to deliver the goods at Liverpool
to the order or assignees of Turing and
Son. Turing and Son endorsed two OF the
bills over to Freeman, retaining the
third. and drew on Freeman for the price
OF the cargo. which draft was accepted by
Freeman. Freeman endorsed the bills OF
loding to Lickbarrow, at Liverpool. and
drew on him for the value Of the cargo.
and Lickbarrow. having received the
bills of lading. paid Treemans draft, so
that Freeman had come to owe Lick
barrow the price of the cargo upon the
bills Of lading received by him, properly
endorsed to him. Meantime. Freeman
became bankrupt and failed to pay Tur-
Ing and Sons acceptance. and Turing and
Son endorsed the bill of lading retained
by them to Mason, at Liverpool who
presented it to the captain Of the ship.
and he delivered the wheat to Mason on
Turing's account. Thereupon Lickbarrow
sued Mason for the wheat. and the ques-
ton to be determined was whether Lick
barrow. tho bona-flde purchaser Of the
cargo with the bills of ladng properly
endorsed to him, was to have the wheat.
or Mason was to have 1t for the benefit
OF Turing and Son. the unpaid shippers.
Tho Court Of Kings Bench held that
Lickbarrow should have the wheat. Mr..
Justice Butler used the following Ian
guage In his opinion In the case
II beg leave to say that In all mercan-
tile transactions. one great point to be
kept uniformly In view Is to make the
circulation and negotiation Of property
rs quick. as easy and as certain as pos
sihle."
In using this language he unlocked
Lord Mansfeld's mind and exhibited to
US what that great judge had had IN
mind when he announced his opinion
In Wright VS.. Campbell. He had re-
solved to strike the common law shackels
from tangible personal property. and put
1t within the power of the English peo-
pie to make that use OF their tangible
personal property which their necessities
and their convenience required.
Equitable estoppel was phrase that
had not come into use at the time that
Lickbarrou VS. Mason was decided. but
though the phrase Is nowhere used In the
report Of the case, the Idea involved In
passage of title by equitable estoppel
runs through the opinion of each Judge,
Thus. Asburst. j., says. I'VE may lay
1t down as broad, general principle thn1
whenever one or two innocent persons
must suffer by acts of third. he
who has enabled such third person
to occasion the loss must sustain 1t. II
that be so 1t will be strong and lead
ing clue to the decision OF the present
case"
The whole doctrine Of passage OF title
byequitable cstopped Is stated here
though the phrase Is not used. The case
settled then, as part of the common
law, that n party who delivers n docu-
ment of that sort passes tito to his
property upon the principles OF equitable