If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?

Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.

Thank you very much for your support!


BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Crawford v Boyd. [1765] 5 Brn 914 (5 December 1765)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1765/Brn050914-1145.html

[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1765] 5 Brn 914      

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION. Collected By James Burnett, Lord Monboddo.
Subject_2 MONBODDO.

Crawford
v.
Boyd

Date: 5 December 1765

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

In this case the Lords unanimously found, that a Scotchman who was a merchant in the Island of Man, having furnished goods to a smuggler here, though he knew very well that the goods were to be smuggled, yet as he had no concern in the smuggling, and as the goods were entirely at the risk of the smuggler, an action lay for payment of the price.

Lord Pitfour put it upon this general principle, that smuggling was not malum in se, but only by particular statute, and that statute did not annul the smuggling contracts, but only imposed penalties upon smuggling.

Others of the Lords thought this reason too general, because it went the length of giving action for implement of a smuggling contract, by delivery of the goods, which it was twice found was not competent.

In this case sundry other points were determined, confirming the doctrine laid down by my Lord Pitfour, concerning extrinsic and intrinsic in a case which lately occurred; particularly, it was the opinion of all the Lords, that payment made not only de recenti but ex intervallo, was intrinsic, but that compensation was aliud negotium, and therefore was extrinsic.

The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1765/Brn050914-1145.html