case DAQUILA against lambert that June she v Dawson in chancery d Feb atk S c  hill ms ex part Clare saint July ex part frank July merchant consign good to a  in England a become insolvent the consignor may stop the good at any time  before they get into a s hand lib Reg a foe S c Eden the plaintiff be a  merchant at Leghorn buy a large quantity of good by direction of defendant  Israeli who reside in England and consign they to he and draw bill of exchange  for the money the bill be accept by Israeli but be protest for nonpayment on  Israelis become insolvent and make a composition with his creditor and assign  his effect in trust for they the good arrive at the port of London and the  agent for the consignor and the agent for the creditor several ambler apply to  the captain for the good but he refuse to deliver they till the right be  settle ambler er p bill by plaintiff to have the good deliver it be argue for  the plaintiff that the consignor may stop the good at any time before they get  into the hand of the consignee in case the consignee be in such circumstance  as not to be able to pay for they and several case be cite wiseman v vandeput  vern and ex part Wilkinson in chancery saint march wine consign from Lisbon to  a merchant in London the wine be bring to Lynne and the consignee become  bankrupt the agent for the consignor stop the wine there and hold be may do so  at any time before they get into the hand of the consignee and that case be  say to differ from wiseman v vandeput as the consignee run a great risk by  reason of the voyage but Lord Hardwicke say as there be no possession in the  bankrupt no appearance of credit on the good nor any payment make the agent  have a right to stop they on the other side it be argue that the legal right  be clear in the consignee that the delivery and possession be material  circumstance in all case of this kind that the good have be deliver to the  captain he be bind in point of law to answer they to the consignee if they be  lose in the voyage it be the loss of the consignee and the case of Evans v  Martlet in I Lord baym be cite for that purpose that whatever determination  the court have make upon particular circumstance it have never declare on a  general case that the consignor have a right to stop the good at the deliver  port and in a case where there be no commission of bankruptcy but only a trust  deed for creditor as in the present case that the present case differ from  wiseman v vandeput in respect that the good be stop in that case before the  voyage begin that there be no equitable circumstance here to induce the court  to act against the legal right ambler Lord Henley chancellor this be a  question of extent and consequence in trade if it have be res integral I shall  have require a more extensive argument and take time to consider but it be not  a case of difficulty have be settle by several determination which have be  universal approve of by merchant the plaintiff be substantial to be consider  as a merchant sell good to Israeli the case of Wilkinson be in point it be  determine on solid reason that the good of one man shall not be apply in  payment of another man debt decree good to be deliver to plaintiff the right  of stoppage in passage be a right which a unpay vendor or consignor of good  have to stop they in their passage from his hand to the possession of a vendee  or consignee it have be lie down by great authority though not confirm by any  express decision that unless the vendee or consignee have become insolvent  this right do not exist per Lord Stowell Constantia rob Adm can and per Gibbs  c I marsh see walley v Montgomery east as soon as the vendee or consignee have  obtain legal possession either actual or constructive of the good the right  cease see per buller just in Ellis v hunt t r foster v Frampton b and c it be  former hold that the vendee or consignee must have actual corporal possession  of the good to destroy the right to stop or in other word to put a end to the  passage but this be not now necessary per Lord Kenyon in wright v law Esp Lord  Ellenborough in Dixon v Baldwen east see Ellis v hunt t r any exercise of  direct ownership by the vendee will seem sufficient Stokes v Biviere cite t r  east hunter v beals cite ib wright v law Esp Stovelaw v Hugh east unless  exercise under circumstance in which the law do not allow the possession of  the vendee as where wine be deposit in the king cellar till duty pay Northi v  field Esp see Holst v Pownazz I Esp S c b p n and in case of good ship it have  be hold that the possession of the vendee must be at the end of the voyage not  for instance while under quarantine Holst v Pownaz but see b p b p wright v  law Esp the chief difficulty in ease where the right to stop in passage come  in question be most to determine whether the possession of the good by a  intermediate person as the master of a ship carrier wharfinger or packer to  who they have be deliver be to be consider the possession of the vendee or  consignee with respect to good ship by a vendor or consignor it have be decide  that if a ship good on board a general ship to b by his order a may stop they  at any time before their delivery assignee of Burghall v Howard h b n Fearon v  bower ib in n see in Cox v garden east wise ambler er p man v vandeput vern so  if they be ship on board a vessel charter by the consignee for the purpose of  fetch the good Bothlink v inglis east see east so if the slip be charter by  the consignor on behalf of the consignee wall v Montgomery east but contra if  ship on board vendees own ship Ogle v Atkinson marshal or on board a ship hire  by he for a long period as year kymer v MTaggart cite east unless the shipment  be qualify with any inconsistent condition as that they be to be deliver to  account of the consignor Ogle v Atkinson ub sup good deliver to a wharfinger  for the purpose of be forward to their ulteriour destination may be stop in  his hand mill v bale b p smith v goss camp so if in the hand of a packer for a  like purpose hunt v ware cite t r Loeschman v William camp but contra if the  wharf or warehouse c where the good be deposit though not the wharf or  warehouse of the vendee or consignee be the place of ultimate delivery in  their transit from the vendor or consignor noble v Adam marsh Leeds v wright  Bos and p Scott v petit b p row v pick ford taunt Loeschman v William camp  foster v Frampton b c or if the good be to wait for order from the vendee for  further destination Dixon v Baldwen east bow v Pickford taunt or if the  consignee before the good reach their ultimate destination postpone the  delivery foster v Frampton b c and the right may be exercise though the good  pass through several hand if not come to possession of the vendee or consignee  mile v ball Bos pull Stoke v LaRiviere cite t r east Huntery Beal t r Hodgson  v loy t r Dixon v Baldwen east but the right can be exercise to the prejudice  of a good fide purchaser from the vendee without notice that the good be unpay  for per justice buller in his judgement in the house of lord into because of  Lickbarrow v Masoit east inn Davis v Reynolds camp per Lord Alvaney in  oppenheim v Russel b p dick v Lumsden peak n p c Davisy Reynolds stark see Mn  Eden snote b law nowhere such purchaser have the bill of lade endorse to he  Stubey Hayward h b Lickbarrow v mason t r h b see Newsom v Thornton east in  Cox v harden east contra shaw v Prescott atk nor where such purchaser be a  good fide purchaser from a factor dick v Lumsden peak n p c wright v Campbell  burr see east contra where the endorsement of the bill of lade by factor be by  way of pledge Newsom v Thornton east and contra in case of endorsement by the  vendee to his factor for sale though vendee be indebt to the factor pullen v  Thompson m S as to sale and pledge by factor as affect by stat Geo go c see  note to Kruger v Wilcox ante but if the purchase from the consignee be affect  with fraud or collusion the consignors right to stop in passage will not be  destroy Solomons v Nissen t r see in arm v brown east as where the purchaser  have notice of the insolvency of the consignee virtue v jewelli camp but the  mere circumstance of the purchaser know that the good have be only pay for by  acceptance not yet due will not preserve the consignors right to stop the good  come v brown east the right of the consignor to stop the good be destroy by  delivery of part under a entire contract Hammond v Anderson b p new Rep Stubey  v Heyward h b per Lord Erskine in ex part gwynne Ves see hanson v Meyer east  in Crawshay v eades b c foster v Frampton b c so by a order from vendor to  wharfinger to deliver to the vendee Harman v Anderson camp n p see Whitehouse  v frost east haw v Watson b c unless something more be to be do before  delivery as to weigh and deliver busky Davis maul S hanson v Meyer east  Wallace v breed east see Shipley Davis marsh wither v Lys cam rug v Minett  east Zaguire v Furnel camp so the right will be destroy though the good remain  in the warehouse of the vendor if vendee pay rend for they hurry v mangle camp  but the right will not be destroy by part payment of the purchase money  Hodgson v loy t r nor by acceptance of bill by vendee or factor for the whole  amount Kinloch v Craig t r nor can it be divest by the act of a creditor of  the vendee as by attachment out of Lord mayor court Smithy goss camp see  Stokes v LaRiviere cite t r and see per Lord Alvaney in oppenheim v Russell b  p nor by the claim of the ambler er p carrier for his general balance due from  vendee oppenheim v Russell b p and see in smith v goss camp the right may be  exercise by a consignor of good for sale on joint account of himself and  consignee v Thornton east or by a person to who a good fide transfer of the  bill of lade have be make Monson v grey more but not by consignor who have  transmit a bill of lade to consignee to indemnify against acceptance or the  like till the object be satisfy hail v smith b p nor by a mere surety for  price of the goodsas by a three person under acceptance for the value Skiffen  v Wray east actual possession by the consignor or vendor be not necessary for  the exercise of this right a claim or notice to the person in who hand the  good be be sufficient per Lord Kenyon in Northey v field Esp see Fearon v  bower h b in note Ellis v hunt t r mill v ball b p oppenheim v Russell b p and  if after such notice they be deliver to the vendee the vendor may recover they  back Litt v Cowley taunt marsh S c it be say by Lord Eldon in Goodhart v low  that there be no instance of stop in passage by a bill in equity James W see  wood v Jones d Ry haw v Watson Ry moody p and note a p there