Carrier's Case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carrier's Case, 13 Edw. IV, f. 9, pl. 5 (Star Ch. and Exch. Ch. 1473) was a landmark English court case in property crime law decided in the Star Chamber (also called Anonymous v. The Sheriff of London). The English court adopted the "breaking bulk" doctrine. If someone transporting merchandise on behalf of someone else (being a bailee) and keeps the property by breaking it open and misappropriating the contents, it constitutes a crime of larceny.[1] The case involved a "carrier" who was hired to transport bales of cotton to the port in Southampton. Instead, the bailee took the contents for himself.[2] Note that while the baile had the possession of the entire bundle, and thus could not be liable for larceny, the fact that he broke bulk, he became liable for larceny as the contents of the bulk were still constructively possessed by the owner.

The Carrier had an agreement with a foreign merchant to carry bales to Southampton. (The carrier can also be called the bailee as he is the person in possession of the goods.) The merchant (also known as the bailor) had royal safe conduct covering his goods. This means, that if the goods were stolen, they would not be given to the Crown by the use of a waif. This happened in medieval times when a good was stolen. When the stolen goods were found, they became property of the King. The carrier broke open the bails and took the contents. The good came into the hands of the sheriff of London who gave the good to the King by waif. The merchant sued for the goods saying that the goods were not stolen and that the carrier had temporary property rights over them and therefore the goods cannot be given to the king. The sheriff's defence was that the carrier had committed a felony and therefore the goods were forfeit to the king.

Despite the fact that the carrier had temporary possession of the goods with permission of the merchant, he had 'broken bulk', i.e., he had broken up the bails and then sold them. The fact that he broke bulk shows the intention to commit felony. He was therefore guilty and hence the goods were forfeited to the king. However, due to the royal safe conduct that the merchant had, he got his goods back anyway.

[edit] References

  1. ^ "Possession and Custody in the Law of Larceny" (April 1921). Yale Law Journal 30(6): pp. 613–617. 
  2. ^ Beirne, Piers, James W. Messerschmidt (2000). Criminology. Westview Press. 

[edit] See also

[edit] Further reading

  • Hall, Jerome (1952). Theft, Law and Society, 2nd edition. 
This case law article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.