Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Transport - From: 1849 To: 1899

This page lists 145 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
The 'Osmanli' [1849] EngR 131; (1849) 3 W Rob 198; (1849) 166 ER 937
15 Jan 1849


Transport
A bond of bottomry given by the master to release his vessel from an arrest on account of debts owing by the owner to his agent at Malta, upon the balance of accounts current between them, such accounts being incurred anterior to the voyage in which the vessel was engaged at the time, not sustained. The general principle, that bonds of bottomry can alone be gven for the furtherance of the voyage in which the vessel is actually engaged, not affected by the circumstance that by the law of the country where she is seized the vessel may be arrested and sold for any debt owing by the owner to a creditor residing in that country.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Rex v Betts; 1850 - (1850) 16 QB 1022
 
John Knight, William Ware And Others Against Faith And Another [1850] EngR 797; (1850) 15 QB 649; (1850) 117 ER 605; 117 ER 605
23 Sep 1850

Lord Campbell CJ
Transport, Insurance
A ship, insured in 1000l. for a year ending 23rd September, was stranded, got off, and brought into the harbour of Sta. Cruz, on September 16th. She remained there with her crew on board till the middle of October, and, during that time, was pumped; and her cargo was discharged into other vessels. Being then beached and surveyed, she was found so much damaged by the accident that the necessary repairs could not be done at Sta. Cruz, there being no dockyard, workmen or materials there ; nor could she be taken to any port where she could prudently have been repaired. Afterwards, in October, the master (who was a part-owner, and interested in the policy) sold her for the benefit of those whom it might concern ; and she fetched 721. No notice of abandonment was given. A special case, in an action against the underwriters, set forth these facts stating also that the vessel, received her death blow,” by the said perils of the seas on September 16th, but that the damage was not ascertained till the 24th. Held : 1. That the sale by the master did not, nor did the other facts, constitute an actual total loss: and that, if there was a constructive total loss which would have entitled the assured to abandon, they could not recover for such loss, not having given notice of abandonment. 2. That the assured were entitled to recover for partial loss by the stranding before September 23d, though the loss was not aecertained till after that day ; the proximate cause of loss, the injury by stranding, having taken place during the year covered by the insurance. 3. That the ultimate loss did not prevent such recovery; for that the partial loss by stranding caused an actual prejudice to the assured, which was not merged in the final loss resulting from the sale, even assuming this to have been a total loss necessarily consequent upon the stranding : the loss being one which, as total, the insurers were not liable to pay for.
Lord Campbell CJ said: "the insurer is liable for a loss actually sustained from a period insured against during the continuance of the risk."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Regina v The Caledonian Railway Company [1850] EngR 868; (1850) 16 QB 19; (1850) 117 ER 782
20 Nov 1850


Transport
A railway company, before applying for a Deviation Act, deposited with the clerk of the peace for the county, plans and sections of the proposed line, and cross sections shewing the manner in which roads were to be carried over the line. On one of those cross sections, No. 3, were delineated the manner in which it was proposed to carry a road at I. over the line by a bridge, and the proposed inclination of the altered line of road. The Deviation Act, when obtained, incorporated the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and enacted (sect. 9) that it should be lawful to the company to construct the bridges, for carrying the railway thereby authorized over any roads, or for carrying any roads over the said railway, of the heights and spans and in the manner shewn on the sections deposited. The company made the line, and at I. deviated two feet vertically from the level marked on the plans. They carried the road over the line on a bridge of the proposed height and span, but with a different inclination of the altered road. A mandamus having issued, commanding the company to make the bridge and carry the road over it in conformity with crass section, No. 3, and at the rates of inclination delineated thereon as the rates of inclination of the road when altered. 1, That the exhibition of the plans and sections imposed no obligation on the company, except in so far as the plans, &c., were incorporated in the Act. 2. That nothing in the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, rendered the cross sections obligatory on the company. 3. That, if sect. 9 in the special Act was obligatory (which, semble, it was so far as regarded the height and spans of the bridges), the obligation did not extend to the rates of inclination of the altered road, and that, Held, on demurrer to a plea to the return, 1, That the exhibition of the plans and sections imposed no obligation on the company, except in so far as the plans, &c., were incorporated in the Act. 2. That nothing in the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, rendered the cross sections obligatory on the company. 3. That, if sect. 9 in the special Act was obligatory (which, semble, it was so far as regarded the height and spans of the bridges), the obligation did not extend to the rates of inclination of the altered road, and that, the mandatory part of the writ going in this respect beyond the obligation imposed by law, the writ was bad altogether. Distinguished,
[ Commonlii ]
 
Grant And Others v Norway And Others [1851] EngR 256 (B); (1851) 10 CB 665
20 Feb 1851
CCP

Transport
The master of a ship signing a bill of lading for goods which have never been shipped, is not to be considered as the agent of the owner in that behalf, so as to make the latter responsible to one who has made advances upon the faith of bills of lading so signed.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Couturier And Others v Hastie And Others [1852] EngR 774; (1853) 8 Exch 40; (1852) 155 ER 1250
26 Jun 1852


Transport, Contract
Action for recovery of cargo lost at sea.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Robertson And Another v Wait And Another [1853] EngR 77; (1853) 8 Exch 299; (1853) 155 ER 1360
13 Jan 1853


Transport, Contract

[ Commonlii ]
 
Hastie And Others v Couturier And Others [1853] EngR 764; (1853) 9 Exch 102; (1853) 156 ER 43
25 Jun 1853


Transport, Contract

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Trident' [1854] EngR 212; (1854) 1 Sp Ecc & Ad 217; (1854) 164 ER 126
4 Feb 1854


Transport
A steam-ship proceeding down the Thames at night, meeting a sailing barge, close hauled on the starboard tack, nearly in mid-channel, in Bugsby’s Reach, stopped her engines and ported her helm; but held to blame for not having reversed. Held, also, that the barge was not bound to go about.
[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Atlantic' [1854] EngR 1000; (1854) 2 Sp Ecc & Ad 93; (1854) A)
6 Dec 1854


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Ernst Merck,' (Kruger) [1854] EngR 1001; (1854) 2 Sp Ecc & Ad 87; (1854) 164 ER 322
6 Dec 1854


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Sylph' [1854] EngR 1023; (1854) 2 Sp Ecc & Ad 75; (1854) 164 ER 315
15 Dec 1854


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Johannes Christoph' [1854] EngR 1042; (1854) 2 Sp Ecc & Ad 93; (1854) B)
29 Dec 1854


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Soglasie' (Fischer) [1854] EngR 1043; (1854) 2 Sp Ecc & Ad 101; (1854) 164 ER 330
29 Dec 1854


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
Young v Moeller (1855) 5 E&B 755
1855


Transport

1 Citers


 
John Mowatt Lennard v William Robinson And John Fleming [1855] EngR 503; (1855) 5 El and Bl 125; (1855) 119 ER 428
29 May 1855


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
Charles Tottie v Edmund Heathcote and Francis Hart Dyke, Her Majesty's Procurator-General [1855] UKPC 24
1 Aug 1855
PC

Transport
Condemnation of a neutral ship for a breach of the blockade of Riga. The ship having come out of the blockaded port with a full knowledge of the blockade.
[ Bailii ]
 
The 'Pepperell'-(Jordan) Master [1855] EngR 902 (A); (1855) Swab 12
8 Dec 1855


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Zollverein' (C H Fanichen, Master) [1856] EngR 412; (1856) Swab 96; (1856) 166 ER 1038
19 Apr 1856


Transport, Jurisdiction
Collision on high seas between a British and foreign vessel. The former not bound by statute.-A foreigner cannot set up against a British vessel with which she has been in collision the British vessd’s violation of British statute law on the high seas, for the foreigner could not herself be bound by it, as it is beyond the power of the Legslature to make rules applicable to foreign vessels beyond British waters. The rights and merits of a case may be governed by a different law from that applicable to the form of remedy and procedure.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Couturier and others v Hastie and Another [1856] UKHL J3; 10 ER 1065; [1856] EngR 713; (1856) 5 HLC 673; (1856) 10 ER 1065
26 Jun 1856
HL

Contract, Transport
Action for recovery of value of cargo lost at sea.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Joseph Somes'-(C T Elmstone, Master) [1857] EngR 109; (1856) Swab 185; (1857) 166 ER 1086
16 Jan 1857


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
Tuff v Warman [1857] EngR 642; (1857) 2 CB NS 740; (1857) 140 ER 607
9 Jun 1857


Negligence, Transport
EngR In an action for an injury to the plaintiffs vessel in consequence of a collision with a vessel under the control of the defendant, there being conflicting evidence of negligence on the one side and on the other. The jury were told, that, if the negligence or default of the plaintiff was in any degree the direct or proximate cause of the damage, he was not entitled to recover, however great might have been the negligence of the defendant: but that, if the negligence of the plaintiff was only remotely connected with the accident, then the question was whether the defendant might by the exercise of ordinary care have avoided it. Held. A proper direction. The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, 17 & 18 Vict. e. 104, leaves the rule of law upon this subject as it was before ; the only effect of the 296th and 298th sections being, to bring the non-compliance with the Admiralty sailing regulations within the category of negligence.
Merchant Shipping Act 1854
[ Commonlii ]
 
Tuff v Warman [1858] EngR 165; (1858) 5 CB NS 573; (1858) 144 ER 231
1858


Transport, Negligence

[ Commonlii ]
 
Xenos v Aldersley (The Evangelismos) (United Kingdom) [1858] UKPC 26
6 Jul 1858
PC

Transport
A colllision took place at sea. The vessel causing the damage got away. From the appearance of a vessel in port, the owners of the damaged vessel caused her to be arrested to answer an action for damages. The vessel seized was a foreign vessel, and in consequence of the owner having no funds in this country, she was detained for some months before she was released on bail.
The Plaintiffs failed in identifying the vessel seized as being the one causing the damage, and the Admiralty Court. dismissed the action with costs, refusing to award damages.
Such decree affirmed on appeal, there being no evidence of male fides, or crassa negligentia, which might imply malice, on the part of the Plaintiffs in arresting the ship, such arrestment being necessary and the foundation of the action in the Admiralty Court, the proceedings being in rem.
[ Bailii ]
 
Lapraik and Chape v Burrows ('the Australia') [1859] UKPC 22
19 Jul 1859
PC

Commonwealth, Transport

[ Bailii ]
 
Bland v Ross (Ship Julia) (Admiralty) (1860) 14 Moo PC 210; [1861] UKPC 8
1860
PC
Lord Kingsdown
Litigation Practice, Transport
The court considered the care needed in an appellate court in reversing a decision on the facts. Lord Kingsdown said that: 'They, who require this Board, under such circumstances to reverse a decision of the court below upon a point of this description undertake a task of great and almost insuperable difficulty . . We must, in order to reverse, not merely entertain doubts whether the decision below is right, but be convinced that it is wrong.'
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Dickenson v Lano (1860) 2 F & F 191
1860

Blackburn J
Transport
Where a third party was responsible for directing shipment by a particular carrier, it may be necessary to decide whether the shipper made a contract of carriage on behalf of the third party or whether the shipper made the contract of carriage on his own behalf at the request of the third party.
1 Citers


 
The Mersey Docks And Harbour Board v Jones And Others, Churchwardens And Overseers Of The Poor Of The Parish Of Liverpool [1860] EngR 263; (1860) 8 CB NS 114; (1860) 144 ER 1108
1860

Erle CJ
Rating, Transport
By a series of local acts, the trustees of certain public docks were impowered to take certain rates and tolls from vessels entering therein, the proceeds to be applied to the repair and maintenance of the docks and harbour; and, if the amount raised should be more than sufticient for that purpose, then the rates and tolls were to be lowered.-By subsequent acts, the trustees were impowered to raise money for building additional warehouses, and to levy rates for payment of the expenses of carrying the acts into effect, paying interest, and maintaining the buildings so erected ; but such additional warehouses were to be rateable to the poor as in the case of premises of which there was a beneficial occupation. Held: In deference to the decision of the court of Queen’s Bench (between the same parties) upon a case stated hy the sessions in 1827 (the King v. the Inhabitants of Liverpool , 7, B. & C. 61, 9 D. & R. 780), and the legislative declaration as to the rateability of the additional buildings erected under the authority of the later Acts, -that the trustees were not rateable in respect of the old docks, &c.--The court has no power hostilely to vary a, special case which has been stated by consent, for the purpose of raising a different question from that which the parties originally contemplated.
[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'North Star' [1860] EngR 505; (1860) Lush 45; (1860) 167 ER 24
23 Feb 1860


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Johannes' [1860] EngR 1303; (1860) Lush 182; (1860) 167 ER 87
21 Dec 1860


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
Fox v Nott (1861) 6 H&N 630
1861


Transport, Contract

Bills of Lading Act 1855
1 Citers


 
Kilgour and Others v Alexander and Others (Ship East Lothian) [1861] UKPC 7
13 Feb 1861
PC

Commonwealth, Transport
Admiralty
[ Bailii ]
 
The 'Arthur Gordon' And The 'Independence' [1861] EngR 406; (1861) Lush 270; (1861) A)
15 Mar 1861


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The Mersey Docks And Harbour Board v Penhallow And Others [1861] EngR 734; (1861) 7 H and N 329; (1861) 158 ER 500
18 Jun 1861
CEC

Land, Transport
Trustees incoiporated by statnte for the puirpose of constriicting a dock, and who receive rates and have fundss which they are bound to appIy in maintaining and cleansing the dock, so that it may be in a fit stste for vessels to enter, are liable for irijurv to a vessel caused by an accumulation of mud in the dock, of which by their servants they had the means of knowing, and were riegligently ignorant.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Ward and Others v Rogers and Others (The Annapolis) Ward and Others v Lockhart and Others (The Golden Light) Ward and Others vThe Owners of HM Hayes (Admiralty) [1861] UKPC 25
2 Aug 1861
PC

Commonwealth, Transport

[ Bailii ]
 
The 'Lady Katherine Barham' [1861] EngR 1073; (1861) Lush 404; (1861) 167 ER 176
17 Dec 1861


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
Xenos v Wickham [1862] EngR 250; (1862) 2 F & F 735; (1862) 175 ER 1262
1862


Insurance, Transport

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Smurthwaite v Wilkins (1862) 11 CB(ns) 842
1862

Erle CJ
Transport, Contract
The endorser of a bill of lading is not liable after he has endorsed over the bill of lading to another who is liable; the shipper remains liable as an original party to the contract. "Looking at the whole statute it seems to me that the obvious meaning is that the assignee who receives the cargo shall have all the rights and bear all the liabilities of a contracting party; but that if he passes on the bill of lading by indorsement to another, he passes on all the rights and liabilities which the bill of lading carries with it." Rejecting the argument that the endorser having passed on all his rights to the endorsee should retain all his liabilities in respect of the goods: "Such a construction might be very convenient for the shipowner but it would be clearly repugnant to one's notions of justice." and "The contention is that the consignee or assignee shall always remain liable like the consignor although he has parted with all interest and property in the goods by assigning the bill of lading to a third party before the arrival of the goods. The consequences which this would lead to are so monstrous so manifestly unjust that I should pause before I consented to adopt this construction of the act of parliament."
Bills of Lading Act 1855
1 Citers



 
 Lindsay v Leathley; 1862 - [1862] EngR 104; (1862) 2 F & F 696; (1862) 175 ER 1245
 
The 'Florence Nightingale'-The 'MaAnder' [1862] EngR 219 (A); (1862) Lush 535
1862


Transport

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Jardine and Others v Leathley; 1862 - [1862] EngR 83 (A); (1862) 3 F & F 80
 
Farrant v Barnes (1862) 11 CB (NS) 553
1862


Transport, Negligence
A duty of care from a consignor to a carrier's servant that the goods to be transported can be safely carried, is owed independently of any contract.
1 Citers


 
In The Matter Of The Complaint of Joseph Baxendale And Others, Carrying On Business Under The Firm Of Pickford and Co v The Bristol And Exeter Railway Company [1862] EngR 261; (1862) 11 CB NS 787; (1862) 142 ER 1005
13 Jan 1862


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Ironsides' [1862] EngR 509; (1862) Lush 458; (1862) 167 ER 205
4 Mar 1862


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
In The Matter Of The Complaint Of Joseph Baxendale And Others, Carrying On Business Under The Firm Of Pickford and Co, Common Carrier v The London And South Western Railway Company [1862] EngR 821; (1862) 12 CB NS 758; (1862) 142 ER 1340
17 Jun 1862


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
Baxendale v The West Midland Railway Company [1862] EngR 843; (1862) 3 Giff 650; (1862) 66 ER 568
24 Jun 1862


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
Laird and Others v Tindall and Others (Ship Ulster) [1862] UKPC 16
16 Jul 1862
PC

Transport
(Admiralty)
[ Bailii ]
 
The 'Salacia' [1862] EngR 1186; (1862) Lush 578; (1862) 167 ER 263
23 Dec 1862


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
Baxendale And Others v The Great Western Railway Company [1863] EngR 3; (1863) 14 CB NS 1; (1863) 143 ER 343
1863


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
Lindsay And Another v Leathley [1863] EngR 37; (1863) 3 F & F 902; (1863) 176 ER 410
1863


Insurance, Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Meander'-The 'Florence Nightingale' [1863] EngR 237 (A); (1863) Br & Lush 29
2 Feb 1863


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
Jardine And Others v Leathley [1863] EngR 260; (1863) 3 B & S 700; (1863) 122 ER 262
10 Feb 1863


Transport, Insurance

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Freeman v Read; 4-Jun-1863 - [1863] EngR 643; (1863) 4 B & S 174; (1863) 122 ER 425
 
The 'Falkland' And The 'Navigator' [1863] EngR 868; (1863) 1 Moo PC NS 379; (1863) 15 ER 744
29 Jul 1863
PC

Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Falkland'-The 'Navigator' [1863] EngR 874; (1863) Br & Lush 204; (1863) 167 ER 337
31 Jul 1863


Transport

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Regina v Kohn; 1864 - [1864] EngR 54; (1864) 4 F & F 68; (1864) 176 ER 470
 
Baxendale And Others v The Great Western Railway Company [1864] EngR 222; (1864) 16 CB NS 137; (1864) 143 ER 1077
4 Feb 1864


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
John Black v James Rose [1864] EngR 624; (1864) 2 Moo PC NS 277; (1864) 15 ER 906
30 Jun 1864
PC

Contract, Transport
By a charter-party it was provided, that freight should be paid at the rate therein specified, "the cargo to be taken alongside, and to be taken from the ship's tackle at the port of discharge, free of risk and expense to the ship," Disputes having arisen during the delivery of the cargo, the Master required payment of the freight for the amount of cargo delivered each day over the ship's side into the consignees boats, and refused to deliver any more cargo, on the consignees' refusing to pay on delivery as required, The Supreme Court of Ceylon held, that by the terms of the charter-party, it was clear, that the intention of the parties was, that the Master should, on the arrival of the vessel at the port of destination, deliver, and the consignees receive, at the ship's side: and that as on such delivery and receipt the Master ceased to be responsible and to have any lien on the goods, he was justified in refusing to discharge the cargo without payment at the ship's side of the freight each day, on the quantity delivered, for his lien would be given up by delivery of the goods. Such decision affirmed on the same grounds by the Judicial Conunittee of the Privy Council.
[ Commonlii ]
 
The Great Ship Company v Sharples and Another (Ship Great Eastern) [1864] UKPC 22
23 Jul 1864
PC

Transport
High Court of Admiralty
[ Bailii ]
 
Brig, Name Unknown [1864] EngR 876; (1864) Br & Lush 370; (1864) 167 ER 404
21 Dec 1864


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
Farnworth And Another v Hyde [1865] EngR 274; (1865) 18 CB NS 835; (1865) 141 ER 674
27 Feb 1865
CEcxC

Insurance, Transport
A vessel was stranded and frozen up in the St Lawrence in the beginning of the winter; and, on the breaking up of the ice in the Spring, she was found to be in imminent peril, and, after several surveys, both ship and cargo were sold under circumstances which the jury found to constitute a reasonable necessity for an immediate sale, the expense of getting the ship afloat and repairing her, and of forwarding the cargo (timber) to its destination (Liverpool) being greater than their value when so respectively repaired and carried :-Held, that the underwriters on cargo were liable as for a total loss, without notice of abandonment ; the information of the loss and of the sale having both reached the assured at the same time.
[ Commonlii ]
 
The United Steam Tug Company v Klingender (The Lady of The Lake and Emperor) [1865] UKPC 11
8 Mar 1865
PC

Transport
High Court of Admiralty
[ Bailii ]
 
Anderson v Hoen and Others (HMS Flying Fish) [1865] UKPC 9
8 Mar 1865
PC

Transport
High Court of Admiralty
[ Bailii ]
 
Bligh Harbottle and Co v Simpson and Others (The Fusilier and Cargo) [1865] UKPC 10
8 Mar 1865
PC

Transport
High Court of Admiralty
[ Bailii ]
 
Kidston v Empire Insurance Co (1866) LR 1 CP 535
1866

Willes J
Transport
The court was asked whether shipowners could recover under a sue and labour clause in a freight policy for the costs of transhipment expended in order to avoid the loss of the freight. There had been no abandonment and underwriters argued that this was fatal to the claim. Held. Willes J said: "As to the second head, - whether the occasion upon which the expenses were incurred was such as to be within the suing and labouring clause, - this depends upon the true answer to the question so thoroughly discussed in the course of the argument, viz. whether the clause ought to be limited in construction to a case where the assured abandons, or may perchance abandon, so that the expense incurred is not only in respect of a subject-matter in which the underwriters are interested, but upon property which, by the abandonment, actually becomes, or may become, theirs, or whether it extends to every case in which the subject of insurance is exposed to loss or damage for the consequences of which the underwriters would be answerable, and in warding off which labour is expended. In the former construction the clause is inapplicable to the present case; in the latter it is applicable, and the assured is entitled to contribution."
1 Citers


 
Le Blanch v Granger [1866] EngR 74; (1866) 35 Beav 187; (1866) 55 ER 866
31 Jan 1866


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
Kemp v Halliday (2) [1866] EngR 76; (1866) 6 B & S 723; (1866) 122 ER 1373
1 Feb 1866


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Ricardo Schmidt' [1866] EngR 94; (1866) 3 Moo PC NS 484; (1866) 16 ER 183
12 Feb 1866
PC

Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Scindia' [1866] EngR 166; (1866) 4 Moo PC NS 84; (1866) 16 ER 248
13 Jun 1866
PC

Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Helene' [1866] EngR 170; (1866) 4 Moo PC NS 70; (1866) 16 ER 242
20 Jun 1866
PC

Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Marie Joseph' [1866] EngR 172; (1866) 3 Moo PC NS 556; (1866) 16 ER 210
23 Jun 1866
PC

Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'True Blue' [1866] EngR 173; (1866) 4 Moo PC NS 96; (1866) 16 ER 252
26 Jun 1866
PC

Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Marie Joseph' [1866] EngR 176; (1866) Br & Lush 449; (1866) 167 ER 437
4 Aug 1866


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Helene' [1866] EngR 175; (1866) Br & Lush 429; (1866) A)
4 Aug 1866


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Ricardo Schmidt' [1866] EngR 179; (1866) 4 Moo PC NS 121; (1866) 16 ER 262
2 Nov 1866
PC

Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Singapore' And The 'Hebe' [1866] EngR 194; (1866) 4 Moo PC NS 271; (1866) 16 ER 319
23 Nov 1866
PC

Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
Johnson v Royal Mail Steam Packet Co (1867) LR 3 CP 38
1867

Willes J
Transport
"Without entering into the question of mortgages of land further than to say we have given it out consideration – the case of a mortgagee and mortgagor of a ship appears to be one of a quite different complexion, because the mortgagee so long as he does not interfere and claim possession, may fairly be taken to have allowed the mortgagor to enter into all engagements for the employment of the ship of the sort usually entered into by a person who has the apparent control and ownership of a vessel."
1 Citers


 
The Cathcart (1867) LR 1 A & E 314
1867


Transport

1 Citers


 
The 'Iona' [1867] EngR 11; (1867) 4 Moo PC NS 336; (1867) 16 ER 344
18 Feb 1867
PC

Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Sir Ralph Abercrombie' [1867] EngR 14; (1867) 4 Moo PC NS 374; (1867) 16 ER 358
27 Feb 1867
PC

Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Velasquez' [1867] EngR 22; (1867) 4 Moo PC NS 426; (1867) 16 ER 378
4 Jul 1867
PC

Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Agra' And 'Elizabeth Jenkins' [1867] EngR 24; (1867) 4 Moo PC NS 435; (1867) 16 ER 382
8 Jul 1867
PC

Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Nina' [1867] EngR 41; (1867) 5 Moo PC NS 51; (1867) 16 ER 434
17 Dec 1867
PC

Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
Dickenson v Jardine (1868) LR 3 CP 639
1868
CCP
Willes J
Insurance, Transport
Goods had been insured for the voyage, but were jettisoned on it. The ship completed her voyage, and the owners of the goods became entitled to recover general average contribution from the other interests which had profited from the jettison. Instead they sued underwriters for the totality of their loss. Held: They entitled to recover the loss.
Willes J explained: "Mr. Williams argued the case in the only way which was possible when he said that a case of jettison under the circumstances here detailed did not constitute a total loss of the goods, because in point of law the loss was less than total, by the value of the right which accrued to have compensation for part of the loss from the shipowner and the other owners of cargo. It was so in one sense, because if the vessel or any part of the cargo arrived safely in consequence of the jettison, the owners must contribute to the loss sustained by the owners of the goods so sacrificed for the general advantage; but the goods were totally lost at the time, though their owner had a contingent right to recover from certain persons a portion of their value. The result is that the owner has two remedies - one for the whole value of the goods against the underwriters, the other for a contribution in case the vessel arrives safely in port; and he may avail himself of which he pleases...."
1 Citers


 
The 'Jeff Davis' [1868] EngR 3; (1867, 1868) 5 Moo PC NS 25; (1868) 16 ER 424
6 Feb 1868
PC

Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'City Of Antwerp' And The 'Friedrich' [1868] EngR 2; (1868) 5 Moo PC NS 33; (1868) 16 ER 427
6 Feb 1868
PC

Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Halley' [1868] EngR 10; (1868) 5 Moo PC NS 262; (1868) 16 ER 514
7 Jun 1868
PC

Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Chetah' [1868] EngR 23; (1868) 5 Moo PC NS 278; (1868) 16 ER 520
26 Nov 1868
PC

Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Calabar' [1868] EngR 25; (1868) 5 Moo PC NS 291; (1868) 16 ER 525
28 Nov 1868
PC

Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Alice' And The 'Rosita' [1868] EngR 24; (1868) 5 Moo PC NS 300; (1868) 16 ER 528
28 Nov 1868
PC

Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Alice' And The 'Princess Alice' [1868] EngR 26; (1868) 5 Moo PC NS 333; (1868) 16 ER 541
30 Nov 1868
PC

Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'England' [1868] EngR 28; (1868) 5 Moo PC NS 344; (1868) 16 ER 545
1 Dec 1868
PC

Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Karnak' [1869] EngR 33; (1869) 6 Moo PC NS 136; (1869) 16 ER 677
14 Jun 1869


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Beta' [1869] EngR 32; (1869) 6 Moo PC NS 55; (1869) 16 ER 647
14 Jun 1869


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Great Pacific' [1869] EngR 34; (1869) 6 Moo PC NS 151; (1869) 16 ER 683
15 Jun 1869


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Lion' [1869] EngR 35; (1869) 6 Moo PC NS 163; (1869) 16 ER 688
16 Jun 1869


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Velocity' [1869] EngR 53; (1869) 6 Moo PC NS 263; (1869) 16 ER 725
26 Nov 1869


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
Stewart and Another v Dewdney and Others Ship John Belamy [1869] UKPC 61
29 Nov 1869
PC

Transport
(High Court of Admiralty of England)
[ Bailii ]
 
The 'Panama' [1870] EngR 23; (1870) 6 Moo PC NS 484; (1870) 16 ER 808
20 Jun 1870
PC

Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Ocean Wave' [1870] EngR 25; (1870) 6 Moo PC NS 492; (1870) 16 ER 812
21 Jun 1870
PC

Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Fenham' [1870] EngR 24; (1870) 6 Moo PC NS 501; (1870) 16 ER 815
21 Jun 1870
PC

Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Salvador' [1870] EngR 30; (1870) 6 Moo PC NS 509; (1870) 16 ER 818
28 Jun 1870
PC

Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Esk' And The 'Niord' [1870] EngR 46; (1870) 7 Moo PC NS 276; (1870) 17 ER 105
27 Nov 1870


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Jesmond' And The 'Earl Of Elgin' [1871] EngR 44; (1871) 8 Moo PC NS 179; (1871) 17 ER 280
13 Nov 1871


Transport
When two Ships under steam ‘‘are meeting end on, or nearly end on, so as to involve risk of collision,” as provided for in Article 13, and one of them at a proper distance ports her helm sufficiently to put her on a course which will carry her clear of the other, and enable her to pass on the port side, she thereby determines the risk, and is not approaching another Ship go as "to involve risk of collision” within the meaning of Article 16, and is not bound to slacken speed or stop.
[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Euxine' [1871] EngR 45; (1871) 8 Moo PC NS 189; (1871) 17 ER 283
16 Nov 1871


Transport
It is the practice in the High Court of Admiralty as to Proxies, for Proctors to proceed without the exhibition of a Proxy until called upon to produce it; and when called on they satisfy the requisite requirement, by stating the names of the parties for whom they appear. Such practice, in this respect, is the same in the Vice-Admiralty Courts abroad, where Proctors are not bound to do more under $ 40 of the Rules and Regulations made in pursuance of the Statute, 2nd Will. 4, c. 61, s. 1, and Order in Council of the 27th of June, 1832, unless called upon to do so by an Order of the Court. The production of a Proxy which, on the face of it, is duly signed and sealed, is a sufficient compliance with an Order of the Court to produce the Proxy, without proof of the handwriting of the subscribing Witnesses; the onus of proof of the insufficiency of the Proxy, if questioned, is on the party impeaching it. An objection to a suit on the ground of the non-production, or insufficient proof of a Proxy, is a preliminary objection to be taken on motion and not by protest, and the proper course for the Vice-Admiralty, in such circumstances, is to stay the proceedings for the production of proof, until sufficient; evidence is produced, and not to allow the cause to proceed to a hearing, and then dismiss the suit on the ground that there was no sufficient proof of the Proxy.
[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Two Ellens' [1872] EngR 13; (1872) 8 Moo PC NS 398; (1872) 17 ER 361
1 Feb 1872
PC

Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Teutonia' [1872] EngR 15; (1872) 8 Moo PC NS 411; (1872) 17 ER 366
8 Feb 1872


Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Gauntlet' [1872] EngR 16; (1872) 8 Moo PC NS 428; (1872) 17 ER 373
9 Feb 1872
PC

Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
Smith v Bank of New South Wales (The Saffordshire) [1872] UKPC 17
13 Feb 1872
PC

Transport, Ireland
(The Admiralty Court of Ireland)
[ Bailii ]
 
The 'Marpesia' [1872] EngR 18; (1872) 8 Moo PC NS 468; (1872) 17 ER 387
14 Feb 1872
PC

Transport
Inevitable accident is that which the party charged with the damage could not possibly prevent by the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and maritime skill.
[ Commonlii ]
 
The Australasian Steam Navigation Company v William Henry Morse And George Philip Morse [1872] EngR 22; (1872) 8 Moo PC NS 482; (1872) 17 ER 393
22 Mar 1872
PC

Commonwealth, Transport, Agency
The authority of the Master of a Ship to sell the goods of an absent Owner is derived from the necessity of the situation in which he is placed; and, consequently, to justify his selling, he must establish (1) a necessity for the sale; and (2) inability to communicate with the Owner. Under these conditions, and by force of them, the Master becomes the Agent of the Owner, not only with the power, but under the obligation (within certain limits) of acting for him; but he is not, in any case, entitIed to substitute his own judgment for the will of the Owner, in selling the goods, where it is possible to communicate with the Owner.
[ Commonlii ]
 
John Redpath And Others v James Allan And Others [1872] EngR 36; (1872) 9 Moo PC NS 340; (1872) 17 ER 542
3 Dec 1872
PC

Transport, Commonwealth
In a cause of damage by collision, that the Statutes are to be read and construed together as being in pari materia, constituting a compulsory pilotage, and exonerating the Owner of a Vessel having such Pilot on board from liability for damage inflicted on another Vessel. Where a Statute inflicts a penalty for not doing an act provided for, the penaIty enacted implies that there is a legal compulsion to do the act in question, and this principle is not affected by the fact, that the penalty has a particular destination.
[ Commonlii ]
 
The 'Ranger' And The 'Cologne' [1872] EngR 37; (1872) 9 Moo PC NS 352; (1872) 17 ER 546
4 Dec 1872
PC

Commonwealth, Transport
It is the general practice for Steam Vessels going down the River Thames to keep on the north side. If, therefore, a Vessel rounding a bend on the north side, under a port helm, on her way up the River, sees the red light of one rounding the same bend on her way down, over her starboard bow, and nearer the northside than she is herself, she is not justified in supposing that the Vessel coming down will cross her north, and pass her on her port side. Vessels, under these circumstances are not crossing Vessels within the meaning of the 14th article of the Steering and Sailing Rules.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Morton and Others v Hutchinson and Others (The Frankland and Kestrel) [1872] UKPC 84
6 Dec 1872
PC

Transport
(The High Court of Admiralty)
[ Bailii ]
 
The 'Frankland' And The 'Kestrel' [1872] EngR 38; (1872) 9 Moo PC NS 365; (1872) 17 ER 551
6 Dec 1872
PC

Commonwealth, Transport
A Steamship navigating in a fog at a moderate speed, hearing a whistle sounded many times, indicating that a Steamer was approaching her, and had come very near to her, so near that if the Vessels had then been stopped they would have been within hailing distance, is bound under the 16th Article not, only to stop the motion of her Engines, but to reverse them, so as to stop the motion of the Vessel, and ought not to wait until the Vessels sight each other, when such a manoeuvre may be too late.
[ Commonlii ]
 
C P Henderson and Co v The Comptoir D'Escompte de Paris (1873-74) LR 5 PC 253
1873
PC

Commercial, Transport, Contract
The court considered a bill of lading in the usual form, save that the words "or order or assigns" are omitted. The court was prepared to assume that such a bill was not a negotiable instrument. It was argued that, notwithstanding the omission of these words, this bill of lading was a negotiable instrument, and there was some authority at nisi prius for that proposition; but the general view of the mercantile world was that, in order to make bills of lading negotiable, some such words as "or order or assigns" ought to be in them.
1 Citers



 
 Waugh v Morris; 1873 - (1873) LR 8 QB 202
 
Gee v Metropolitan Railway Co (1873) LR 8 QB 161
1873


Transport



 
 Gaudet Geipel and Others v Brown (The Ex Cargo Argos); PC 18-Feb-1873 - [1873] UKPC 15; (1873-74) LR 5 PC 134
 
Brown v Gaudet (The Ex Cargo Argos) [1873] UKPC 54
30 May 1873
PC

Transport
(High Court of Admiralty)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 The Proprietors of the Cork Distilleries Co v The Directors of the Great Southern and Western Railway Co; HL 1874 - (1874) LR 7 HL 269
 
Jackson v Union Marine Insurance Co Ltd [1874] LR 10 CP 125; [1874-80] All ER REP 317; 44 LJCP 27; [1874] 31 LT 789; [1874] 23 WR 169; [1874] 2 Asp MLC 435
1874
CCP
Baron Bramwell
Contract, Transport, Insurance
The plaintiff ship owner, contracted under a charterparty to proceed with all possible dispatch to Newport. He insured the cargo. The ship ran aground before the cargo could be collected, and was delayed. The charterers threw up the charterparty and contracted elsewhere for the delivery of the goods. The plaintiff claimed under his insurance. Held: The delay had been so long as to put an end to the contractual obligations. The charterers were therefore not obliged to load the cargo, and the loss constituted a loss of the chartered freight by perils of the sea. It was the happening of the event and not the fact that the event was the result of a breach by one party of his contractual obligations that relieved the other party from further performance of his obligations: "There are the cases which hold that, where the shipowner has not merely broken his contract, but has so broken it that the condition precedent is not performed, the charterer is discharged. Why? Not merely because the contract is broken. If it is not a condition precedent, what matters it whether it is unperformed with or without excuse? Not arriving with due diligence or at a day named is the subject of a cross-action only. But not arriving in time for the voyage contemplated, but at such a time that it is frustrated is not only a breach of contract, but discharges the charterer. And so it should though he has such an excuse that no action lies".
1 Citers


 
Stanton v Richardson [1874] 9 Common Pleas 390
1874


Contract, Transport
The shipowner contracted to carry wet sugar but the ship was not fit to carry it. The jury found also that it could not be made fit in time to avoid frustrating the purpose of the voyage. The molasses had drained from the wet sugar into the hold in large quantities and the ship's pumps were unable to deal with it. The cargo was unloaded. Held: The charterers were entitled to refuse to reload it or to provide any other cargo. If the defect had been or could have been remedied within a reasonable time so as not to frustrate the adventure the charterer's right would not have been to terminate the charter-party but to have claimed damages for any loss occasioned by the delay.
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Inhabitants of Greenhow; 1876 - (1876) 1 QBD 703; (1876) 45 LJMC 141; (1876) LT 363; (1876) 41 JP 7 DC
 
Tully v Richardson and Others Norma [1876] UKPC 20
30 Mar 1876
PC

Transport
(Vice Admiralty Court of Quebec)
[ Bailii ]
 
"Sierra Nevada" [1876] UKPC 24
7 Apr 1876
PC

Transport
(Vice Admiralty Court of Quebec)
[ Bailii ]

 
 The English, Scottish and Australian Chartered Bank v Putwain and Another (Cargo Ex Gothenburg); PC 11-Jan-1877 - [1877] UKPC 1
 
Fowler v Knoop (1878) 4 QBD 299
1878


Transport, Contract

1 Citers


 
Glynn Mills v E and W India Dock Co (1880) 6 QBD 475
1880


Transport
The effect of the assignment of a bill of lading on the title to the goods depends on the circumstances and the intention of the transferor and transferee.
1 Citers


 
Glyn Mills Currie and Co v The East and West India Dock Company (1880) 6 QBD 475
1880
CA

Transport

1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Glyn Mills Currie and Co v The East and West India Dock Company (1882) 7 App Cas 591
1882
HL

Transport
It was the "undoubted practice" to deliver "without inquiry" to the holder of an order bill of lading
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Sanders v Maclean (1883) 11 QBD 327
1883
CA
Bowen LJ
Transport
"The law as to the indorsement of bills of lading is as clear as in my opinion the practice of all European merchants is thoroughly understood. A cargo at sea is incapable of physical delivery, and a bill of lading by the law merchant is universally recognised as its symbol; and the indorsement and delivery of the bill of lading operates as a symbolical delivery of the cargo. Property in the goods passes by such indorsement and delivery of the bill of lading, whenever it is the intention of the parties that the property should pass, just as under similar circumstances the property would pass by an actual delivery of the goods. It is a key which in the hands of a rightful owner is intended to unlock the door of the warehouse, floating or fixed, in which the goods may chance to be."
1 Citers


 
Allen v Coltart (1883) 11 QBD 782
1883

Cave J
Transport
"Where goods are deliverable to the holder of a bill of lading on certain conditions being complied with, the act of demanding delivery is evidence of an offer on his part to comply with those conditions, and the delivery accordingly by the master is evidence of his acceptance of that offer."
1 Citers


 
Sewell v Burdick (1884) 10 AC 74
1884
HL
Earl of Selborne LC
Transport
What does the word "property" encompass in the context of the assignment of a bill of lading? Is it limited to the general property in the goods, that is, the legal title to the goods as is transferred by a sale? Or does it include the special property which signifies the right to possession? Held: It should be limited to the passing of the general property. Bills of lading are often used as security documents facilitating the financing by banks of merchants' sale transactions. A bank's interest is to use the possessory right to the document and the goods it represents as security; its interest is not to enter into contractual relations with the carrier, still less, to undertake contractual obligations towards the carrier. a transaction of pledge accompanied by the endorsement of the bill of lading over to the pledgee did not come within the scope of s.1 and did not transfer to the pledgee any contractual rights nor subject the pledgee to any contractual liabilities under the bill of lading. A person who had had the bill of lading endorsed to him while the goods were at sea and who then chose to take advantage of his possession of the bill of lading to "take the position of full proprietor upon himself with its corresponding burdens if he thinks fit" "and that he actually does so as between himself and the shipowner if and when he claims and takes delivery of the goods by virtue of that title."
Bills of Lading Act 1855
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Great Western Railway Co v Bagge and Co (1885) 15 QBD 625
1885


Transport
Where there are separate contracts between consignor and carrier and between the carrier and the consignee, where the risk of loss fell is a matter of contstruction of each contract.
1 Citers



 
 Seath and Co v Moore; HL 1886 - (1886) 13 R (HL) 57

 
 Orr Ewing v Colqhoun; 1887 - (1887) 2 App Cas 839
 
Wilson Sons and Co v Owners of Cargo per the 'Xantho' (1887) 12 App Cas 503
1887

Lord Herschell, Lord Bramwell
Transport, Insurance
A cause of damage otherwise satisfying the established definition may be a peril of the sea even though caused by a shipowner's negligence. Lord Herschell said: "If that which immediately caused the loss was a peril of the sea, it matters not how it was induced, even if it were by the negligence of those navigating the vessel." A shipowner owes the bill of lading holder a bailee's duty of care and accordingly, construing the bill of lading contract as a whole, the shipowner could not rely on the "perils of the sea" exception to oust his duty of care.
the words in a cancellation clause to "perils or danger and accidents of the sea" bear the same meaning, as a matter of construction, in a bill of lading or contract of carriage as in an insurance policy.
The words "perils of the sea": "do not protect, for example, against that natural and inevitable action of the wind and waves, which results in what may be described as wear and tear. There must be some casualty, something which could not be foreseen as one of the necessary incidents of the adventure. The purpose of the policy is to secure an indemnity against accidents which may happen, not against events which must happen."
1 Citers


 
The Stettin (1889) 14 PD 142
1889


Transport, Contract
A bill of lading was issued by the owners of a German flag vessel and covered carriage from London to Stettin. It was made out to a named consignee "or to his or their assigns" who was the agent for Julius Manasse in Breslau, and was instructed by the shipper on arrival in Stettin to arrange for the goods to be sent on by lighter to Manasse. No bill of lading was produced by him for delivery, however, and the shipper was not paid. The shipper sued the carrier for misdelivery of the goods. The defendant shipowner’s said that where there was a named consignee "or order" but the consignee did not endorse the bill (as in that case), the effect was the same as a straight bill of lading. The shipowner could deliver to the consignee without production of a bill of lading unless told by the shipper not to do so, taking the risk, presumably as against an endorsee, of whether there had been an endorsement or not. Held: German law does not essentially differ from English law, according to which a shipowner may not deliver goods to the consignee without production of the bill of lading. The shipowner must take the consequences.
1 Citers


 
Irrawaddy Flotilla Company Limited v Bugwandass [1891] UKPC 23
4 Jul 1891
PC

Transport, Agency
(Rangoon) The Board considered the liability of common carriers to insure goods entrusted to them.
[ Bailii ]

 
 The Walter D Wallet; 1893 - [1893] P 202
 
The Glendarroch [1894] P 226
1894

Lord Esher MR
Contract, Transport
The burden of proof is on the party to the contract who seeks to rely upon it, to show that the claims come within the exclusion of liability condition on its true construction.
1 Citers


 
Hawksford and Renouf v Gifford [1896] UKPC 63
18 Dec 1896
PC

Transport, Insolvency
(Jersey)
[ Bailii ]
 
Attorney-General v Wright [1897] 2 QB 318
1897
CA
Lord Esher MR
Transport
The nouns "mooring" and "moorings" have been judicially defined as "a mode of anchoring a vessel by means of a fastening in the ground, either an anchor or something heavy or a chain and buoy, as will allow a vessel picking up the buoy when she returns to it and so coming to rest". A public right of navigation includes the right to moor or to drop anchor on the soil of the river bed for purposes incidental to passage.
1 Citers


 
Caledonian Ry Co v Mulholland or Warwick [1898] AC 216
1898
HL
Lord Shand
Negligence, Transport
The appellant company were held not liable for injuries caused by a defective brake on a coal wagon conveyed by the railway company to a point in the transit where their contract ended, and where the wagons were taken over for haulage for the last part of the journey by a second railway company, on which part the accident happened. It was held that the first railway company were under no duty to the injured workmen to examine the wagon for defects at the end of their contractual haulage. There was ample opportunity for inspection by the second railway company. The relations were not proximate.
The court discussed responsibility for a thing dangerous in itself, as 'an instrument noxious or dangerous in itself which might produce an accident from the mere handling of it.'
1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.