## Facts

- Underwriters insured a cargo of timber (“deals”) shipped on a Prussian vessel from Onega to Hull.
- The ship was wrecked on the Norwegian coast; the cargo was safely landed.
- The Hull consignees gave the underwriters notice of abandonment as for a total loss; the underwriters accepted abandonment and paid as for a total loss.
- Before receiving instructions from the cargo interests, the ship’s master and agent obtained a Norwegian survey recommending sale and arranged a public auction conducted through local Norwegian auction authority.
- An agent for the underwriters protested at the auction; the sale proceeded and a Norwegian purchaser bought the timber.
- The underwriters’ agent challenged the sale in Norwegian court seeking return of the goods; the Norwegian court confirmed the auction and rejected the challenge.
- The Norwegian purchaser forwarded the timber to London merchants who had advanced funds on the goods; the merchants took delivery and later refused the underwriters’ demand for the timber.
- The underwriters sued the London merchants in trover, asserting the master lacked authority to sell under English maritime law and that the sale could not pass title as against them.

## Issues

1. Whether a ship master’s foreign sale of cargo, unnecessary under English maritime law, can pass good title when the sale is valid under the law of the place where the goods were situated.
2. Whether English courts must recognize foreign judicial proceedings confirming such a sale as effective to transfer title to movables.
3. Whether acceptance of abandonment by underwriters relates back to the time of loss so as to permit an action in trover despite an intervening sale.

## Decision

- Judgment for the defendants (London purchasers) was affirmed by the Exchequer Chamber.
- The court accepted that, under English maritime law alone, the master lacked authority to sell because there was no necessity once the cargo was safe on shore; standing alone, that sale would not bind the owners/underwriters.
- The court held that acceptance of abandonment related back to the time of loss, so the underwriters could maintain trover as a matter of standing.
- Nevertheless, because the timber was in Norway at the time of the sale and Norwegian law treated the master’s sale (and the judicially supervised auction) as transferring ownership, the foreign transfer of title was recognized in England.
- The defendants, taking through the Norwegian purchaser, had good title and were not liable in trover.

## Legal Principles

- Title to movable property is generally governed by the law of the place where the property is situated at the time of the transfer (lex situs).
- A transfer of movables valid under the lex situs, including a foreign judicially sanctioned sale, will be recognized as effective in England, even if the transferor would have lacked authority under English domestic maritime rules.
- Acceptance of abandonment in marine insurance relates back to the time of loss, vesting the underwriters with the assured’s interest from that time and permitting actions for subsequent interference with the property.
- Relation-back of abandonment does not defeat a valid foreign transfer of title completed under the lex situs before the underwriters seek recovery from later holders.

## Conclusion

The Exchequer Chamber held that although the master’s sale lacked necessity under English maritime law and abandonment related back to the time of loss, the Norwegian judicially supervised sale valid under Norwegian law transferred title to the timber, and that title was recognized in England, defeating the underwriters’ trover claim against downstream purchasers.


Cammell v. Sewell, 5 Hurl. & N. 728 (Exch. Ch. 1860)