Atkinson v Colesworth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 February 1825 |
| Date | 04 February 1825 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 1221
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Subsequent proceedings with annotations, 3 B. & C. 647, sub nomine Atkinson v. Colesworth.
[339] Sittings after Trinity Term, in London, before Lord Chief Justice Abbott. July 9th, 1824. atkinson v. coles worth. (If the master of a ship enter into an agreement of charter party, not under seal, in which the defendant agrees to pay him the freight, by good bills whether the defendant is justified in paying them to the owner of the ship, after notice by the master not to do so -Qucere ) [Subsequent proceedings with annotations, 3 B. & C. 647, sub nomine Atkinson v. Cotesworth.] Assumpsitby the captain of the brig "Agaphea," against the defendant, for freight and primage. The first count of the declaration was on an agreement of charter party (not under seal), bearing date the 21st of June, 1823, between the plaintiff, who was therein described as " commander of the good ship or vessel, called the ' Agapkea,' " and the defendant, by which it was agreed, that the vessel should take 011 board a cargo, and proceed to Pernambuco ; and, having delivered it, should 1222 ATKINSON V. COLESWORTH 1 CAR. & P. 340. there, or at Paraiba, take in a homeward eaigo^ and deliver it at London, or Liverpool (as directed), on being paid freight and primage (dt the rate specified) The freight to be paid on unloading and right delivering of the cargo, by a good aud approved bill, payable in London, at two months' date from the day of final discharge; and for the performance of the agreements of the charter party, the parties thereunto bound themselves, &e. , and the charterer agreed to advance the said master £150, on the vessel's arrival in London or Liverpool, the said master allowing the usual interest for the same, and the amount to be deducted from the bill before mentioned. The plaintiff then averred performance of the difterent things to be done by him and the ship ; and a breach, that the defendant refused to pay the ireight, by a good and approved bill, &c (in the terms of the charter party) or by any other bill or bills, or in cash, or otherwise howsoever . but wholly neglected, &e There were also an indebitatus count for freight, and the common money county Plea-General issue. [340] The charter party was proved and put in. The terms of it were as stated in the first counts of the declaration ; and, from the other evidence, it appeared, that a person named Hodgens was the owner of the vessel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atkinson v Cotesworth
...107 E.R. 873 IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.Atkinson against Cotesworth S. C. 5 D. & R 552; 3 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 104; and at Nisi Prius, 1 Car. & P. 339. Referred to, Japp v. Campbell, 1887, 57 L. J. Q. B. 81. [647] atkinson against cotesworth. Friday, February 4th, 1825. Where the commander o......