Carrier's Case

rdf:langString Carrier's Case

rdf:langString Carrier's Case

rdf:langString none

rdf:langString YB. Pasch. 13 Edw. IV, f. 9., pl. 5 . 64 Selden Soc.

rdf:langString Anonymous v. The Sheriff of London

rdf:langString Lord Chokke and others

rdf:langString

rdf:langString Breaking bulk

rdf:langString duties of bailees

rdf:langString larceny by unlawful conversion

rdf:langString royal safe conduct

rdf:langString Carrier's Case (Anonymous v. The Sheriff of London, The Case of Carrier Who Broke Bulk) (1473) was a landmark English court case in the history of the definition of larceny. Until this ruling, when an owner voluntarily handed over physical possession of property to the custody of another, and it was then converted (in title: made that of another), there was no felonious larceny as larceny required trespass of the owner's or bailee's place or person (violence or the threat of violence). The English courts henceforth adopted the "breaking bulk" doctrine. If someone transporting a bulk or bale (bundle) of merchandise (the carrier) on behalf of someone else, and breaks it open without permission, express or implied, (thus converts them to the carrier's own use), it is the crime of larceny. The case was significant because in common law at that time, larceny required a trespass by force and arms (vi et armis) or against the peace, which did not occur if the person was willingly handed the bulk or bales of items. The breaking of the bulk was found to be the required force needed in the element of trespass. In the underlying case, one justice (Chokke [J.C.P]) stated that if the carrier sold the entire bale unbroken, then kept the proceeds for his own use, the act would not have the (at the time) element of (violent) trespass, so would not be larceny, but the breaking of the bulk satisfied the trespass element.