Boson against Sandford and Seven Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1797 |
| Date | 01 January 1797 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 83 E.R. 678
IN THE COMMON PLEAS.
Overruled, Govett v. Radnidge, 1802, 3 East, 68. Upheld, Powell v. Layton, 1806, 3 B. & P. (N. R.) 371. See Kendall v. Hamilton, 1879, 4 App. Cas. 543.
[258]' trinity term, in the first year of the reign of william and mary. in the common pleas. in B. R. boson against sandford and seven others. S. C. Shower 29. 3 Mod. 321. 2 Salk. 440. [Overruled, Govett v. Eadnidge, 1802, 3 East, 68. Upheld, Powell v. Layton, 1806, 2 B. & P. (N. R.) 371. See Kendall v. Hamilton, 1879, 4 App. Gas. 543.] Master or part-owners of a ship responsible, but all the part-owners to be joined. 2 Lev. 27. 2 Saunders 115, 116. 3 Mod. 322. 1 Salk. 10. 1 Bulst. 16. Post. 352, 362. 6 Mod. 181. 6 Term Rep. 370. Caae against the defendants proprietors of a ship, wherein goods are usually transported for hire; and that the plaintiff loaded goods on board the said ship to be carried for hire from London to Topsham in Devonshire; and that the defendants received them and undertook to carry them to Topsham, but that they not being careful therein, but neglecting their duty, did so carelessly place and carry the goods, that though the ship arrived safely at Topsham, yet the goods were spoiled: and on not guilty the jury found a special verdict, viz. that ten other persons besides the defendants are proprietors and part-owners of the ship; that the ship had a master placed in her by the part-owners, who had 601. wages for every voyage between Topsham and London; that the goods were delivered to the master, none of the part-owners being present, and that no contract was made with them or any for the plaintiff, that the ship should arrive safe at Topsham, but that the goods were spoiled by negligence, &c. And if for the plaintiff, for the plaintiff; and if not, for the defendant. And two questions were made in this case. 1. Whether the proprietors 3LEV.M9. TRINITY, 1 WILLIAM AND MARY 679 are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
David Colvin, James Colvin, Richard Campbell Bazett, and Alexander Colvin, - Plaintiffs (in Error); Nicholas Newberry, and Thomas Starling Benson, Defendants (in Error)
...notwithstanding the loss of the ship. For this reason the freight bills were only to be considered as securities. * Boson v. Sandford, 3 Lev. 258, 2 Salk. 439. f Ca. Temp. Hardw. 85, 194. J See Abbot on Shipping, 5th Ed. p. 173 et seq. [2 Br. & B. 410]. 2 Brod. & Bing. 410. || Mackenzie v. ......
-
Boson v Sandford et Al'
...87 E. R. 212 (with note). case 673. boson v. sandford et al'. [S. C. 3 Mod. 321; 87 E. R. 212 (with note).] S. C. 2 Salk. 440. 3 Salk. 203. 3 Lev. 258. Garth. 58. Skin. 278. Comb. 116. 1 Show. 29, 101. 2 Show. 478. An action for the miscarriage of goods by water may be brought against the s......
-
Weall against Wm. King and Henry King
...of [455] construction. In this case a joint contract was necessary to be laid (a) 3 East, 62. (V) Dougl. 665. (c) Skin. 278. Salk. 440. 3 Lev. 258. Garth. 58. 2 Show. 478. (d) 2 New Eep. 365. (e) Ibid. 454, and vide ante, 89, S. C. 178 EIGHT V. SMITH 12 EAST, 156, in order to maintain the g......
-
Anonymous (1795) 1 Salk 282
...stage-coach not chargeable for goods lost by the driver, unless the master takes a price for the carriage of goods. 1 Mod. 198. 3 Mod. 323. 3 Lev. 258. 1 Danv. 3. 2Saund. 115. 2 Salk. 423, 426, 440, 441, 444, 613, 614. 4 Leon. 123. 248 EVIDENCE 1 SALKKLD, 283. 1 Show. 29. Hob. 206. Palm. 53......