Ashcroft v Crow Orchard Colliery Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 July 1874 |
| Date | 06 July 1874 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Lush, J.
Ashcroft v. Crow Orchard Colliery Company
Kearon v. PearsonENR 7 H. & N 386
Tapscott v. Balfour ante, vol. 1, p. 501 27 L. T. Rep. N.S. 719 L. Rep. 8 C. P. 46
Charter-party Demurrage Dock regulations
Tapscott v. Balfour (ante, vol. 1, p. 501) distinguished.
MARITIME LAW CASES. 397 Chan.] Ashcroft v. Crow Orchard Colliery Company. [Q. B. Court of queen's Bench. Reported by J. Shortt and M. W. McKellar, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. June 11 and July 6, 1874. Ashcroft v. Crow Orchard Colliery Company. Charter-party-Demurrage-Dock regulations- Usual despatch of the port. Where by a charter-party it is mutually agreed between shipowner and charterer that the ship-owner's ship is " to be loaded with the usual dispatch of the port, or if longer detained to be paid 40s. demurrage," and that the ship is to be loaded at a named dock, by the regulations of which no shipper could have more than three vessels loading in dock at the same time, and, by reason of the charterer having more than three vessels entered in their books which had to be loaded in the dock before that ship, the ship is delayed an unreasonable time, the contract to load with the usual dispatch of the port must be considered as an absolute contract to load with that dispatch and with in a reasonable lime, independently of any other engagements of the charterers, even if it can be shown that at the time of the making of the charter-part the shipowner knew that such persons' engagements existed, and the shipowner can recover demurrage. 398 MARITIME LAW CASES. Q. B.] Ashcroft v. Crow Orchard Colliery Company. [Q. B. Tapscott v. Balfour, ante, vol. 1, p. 501, distinguished. This was an action by a shipowner against charterers tried before Quain, J., at the Liverpool Summer Assiz s, 1873, when a verdict of 601. was entered for the plaintiff, leave to move being reserved to the defendants. A rale nisi was obtained in pur-suance of the leave reserved, on the ground that the facts proved did not, on the true construction of the charter-party, disclose any liability on the part of the defendants. The first count of the declaration set out the charter-party, which provided, amongst other things, that the defendants should load the plaintiff's ship " with the usual despatch of the port" of Liverpool. If detained, the plaintiff " to do paid 40*. per day demurrage." The alleged breach was not loading with the usual despatch. The second count was framed upon a memorandum at the foot of the charter-party, by which the vessel was to " load in the Bramley Moore or Wellington Docks, High Level Railway." The breach was not giving, or procuring, within a reasonable time an order entitling the plaintiff's vessel to enter the said docks. There were also money counts for demurrage. The pleas merely denied the contracts, the breaches, and the debt. The judgment of the court contains a full statement of the facts and arguments. Aspinall, QC. and Bremner showed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Van Liewen v Hollis Brothers & Company
...Cardiff CorporationDID=ASPMELR 9 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 23 83 L. T. Rep. 329 (1900) 2 Q. B. 638 Ashcroft v. Crow Orchard CompanyDID=ASPM 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 397 31 L. T. Rep. 266 L. Rep. 9 Q. B. 540 Ford v. Cotsworth Surraino and Sons v. Campbell and othersELR 1891, 1. Q. B. 283 Hick v. Raymon......
-
Nelson v Dahl
...3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 34 Tapscott v. BalfourDID=ASPM 1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 501 Ashcroft v. The Crow Orchard Colliery CompanyDID=ASPM 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 397 Davis v. M'VeaghDID=ASPM 4 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 149 Schilizzi v. DerryENR 4 E. & B. 873 Bastifell v. Lloyd 1 H. & Coll. 388 Parker v. Win......
-
Leonis Steamship Company Ltd v Joseph Rank Ltd
...cited The Carislrook, 6 Asp. Mar. Law Cm. 507 (1890); 62 L. T. Rep. 843; 15 P. Div. 98; Ashcroft v. Crow Orchard Colliery Company, 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 397 (1874); 31 L. T. Rep. 266; L. Bop. 9 Q. B. 540; Davies v. McVeayh, 4 Asp. Mar. Law Cm. 149 (1879); 41 L. T. Rep. 308 ; 4 Ex. Div. 265; ......
-
Tharsis Sulphur and Copper Company v Morel
...Rep. N. 8. 381; 4 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 892 ; 6 App. Cas. 38; Ashworth v. The Crow Orchard Colliery Company, 31 L. T. Rep. N. S. 266; 2 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 397; L. Bep.9 Q, B.541; Pitman v. Dreyfus, 61 L. T. Rep. N. S. 724; 6 Am. Mar. Law Cas. 444; 24 Q. B. Div. 152 ; Dall'Orso ?. Mason and Co.......