Blackett and Another against Smith, Treasnrer of the West India Dock Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 July 1910 |
| Date | 03 July 1910 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 104 E.R. 203
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
[518] blackett and another against smith, Treasurer of the West India Dock Company. Tuesday, July 3d, 1810. The owner of a homeward bound ship entering the West India Docks in so leaky a condition as to require immediate unloading and assistance, without waiting her turn to be quayed and unloaded in rotation in the import dock, in the manner required by the 39 G. 3, c. 69, is bound to bear the extra expences of labourers for pumping the ship after the crew were discharged, and for delivering the cargo into lighters in the outward dock or basin ; also for coopering previous to such delivery into lighters, and for the hire of such lighters; the company having afterwards unladen the cargo out of such lighters upon the quays in the import dock, and performed the requisite cooperage, &c. upon such unlading, in the same manner as they would have done if the cargo had been delivered out of the ship itself in its proper time and place. The plaintiffs declared in assumpsit, and stated that they were possessed of a ship lately arrived in the river Thames from the West Indies, with a cargo of West India produce; and in consideration that they had caused her to enter the docks of the West India Dock Company, erected pursuant to the stat. 39 Geo. 3, c. 69, of the completion whereof due notice had been given, and also in consideration that the plaintiffs would pay to the company the rate or duty of 6s. 8d. per ton of the ship's burthen pursuant to the statute, the company promised that they would use due care and diligence about, and bear all charges of, the navigating, mooring, unmooring, removing, and management of the ship, from her arrival into the entrance of the docks at Blaekwall, until she should be unloaded and moored in a certain dock of the company appropriated to light ships, and also in and about and .of the unloading of her cargo within the docks, and the landing waiters' fees on account thereof, and also in and about and of the cooperage and hoops and nails, which the cargo might require in the course of such unloading thereof. That the plaintiffs paid the duty of 6s. 8d. per ton, amounting to 1011. 7s. Id. That when the ship entered the docks she was leaky, and it was necessary for the preservation of the cargo that it should be unloaded, and the pumps kept at work; whereof the company had notice. Yet the company [519] refused to unload the cargo, or to cause the pumps to be worked; by reason whereof the water flowed into the ship; and the plaintiffs for the preservation of the cargo were put to the expence of 1691. Os. 6d. in pumping the ship and unloading the cargo, and in coopering and providing hoops and nails in the course of such unloading thereof. There was a second count for not lightening the ship; and the 3d and 4th were founded on promises to bear all the charges of the navigating, &c.; omitting the using due care and diligence. There were also the common money-counts. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit: and at the trial of the cause before Lord Ellenborough C.J. in Middlesex, a verdict was found for the plaintiff for 1691. Os. 6d., subject to the opinion of this Court upon the following case. Previous to July 1809 the West India Docks were completed in pursuance of the Acts...
To continue reading
Request your trial