Castelli v Cook
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 February 1849 |
| Date | 09 February 1849 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 68 E.R. 36
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 18 L. J. Ch. 148; 13 Jur. 675.
[89] castelli v. cook. Feb. 8, 9, 1849. [S. C. 18 L. J. Ch. 148; 13 Jur. 675.] If relief which is a proper subject of the jurisdiction of another Court be dependent upon relief to be given in this Court, or if the relief which is properly a subject for this Court, cannot be given except that which belongs to another jurisdiction be also given, this Court, to prevent multiplicity of suits, may give both kinds of relief; but if the relief which is sought in a suit be of different kinds, within the jurisdiction of different Courts, and independent of each other, although relating to the same transaction, the right in this Court to one kind of relief will not necessarily draw along with it the right to the other; and therefore, where the bill by a part-owner of a ship, against the master and other part-owners, prayed an account of the past earnings of the ship, to which the Plaintiff was entitled, his right to that relief afforded no reason for going on to restrain the sailing of the ship until security, according to the practice of the Admiralty Court, was given for the Plaintiff's shares. The Court of Chancery will not (in a case within its jurisdiction) interfere beyond, or otherwise than, the Court of Admiralty would interfere at the suit of some part-owners to control the management or restrain the sailing of a ship, there being no question as to the ownership, and the only dispute being as to the powers of the owners inter se:-Semble. Whether the Court of Chancery has a concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Admiralty to restrain the sailing of a ship at the suit of the minority, or some of the part-owners, until security for its return shall be given by the majority, or others; or whether it is necessary that other circumstances should exist, as questions of property or otherwise, to draw the subject within the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery-quaere. Objections to relief, on the ground that although part that is asked is, yet the other part is not, within the jurisdiction of the Court, are not analogous to objections for multifariousness, where unconnected subjects of equitable jurisdiction are united in. the same suit. Where an injunction is applied for upon a distinct ground, which fails, it will not in general be granted upon another ground which has not been put forward, but which, it appears, might have been put forward in the circumstances of the ease. A motion to dissolve an injunction restraining the Defendant, Robert William Cook, his servants and agents, [90] from sailing the ship "Alligator," or causing or procuring her to sail from the port of London, until the said Defendant should fully answer the bill, or the Court make other order. The Plaintiffs were the owners of 12-64ths shares of the ship, the Defendant, Cook, of 24-64ths, the Defendant, Woods, of 12-64fchs, and the Defendant, Siddle, of 16-64ths, which he had sold but not transferred to the Defendant, Patey. The bill and affidavits stated that the "Alligator" sailed from London in June 1841, for Sincapore, under the command of the Defendant, Cook, and that she arrived in the port of London in November 1848, having in the interval been employed in different voyages in the. 7 HAKE, 91. CASTBLLI V. COOK 37 eastern seas; and that the Plaintiffs believed that the gross earnings of the ship during that period had not been less than 25,000, all of which had been received by the Defendant, Cook. The several voyages referred to were set forth as shewing the grounds of this belief; and the bill and affidavits stated that the Defendant, Cook, had not rendered to the Plaintiffs any accounts of the employment or earnings of the vessel, nor had such accounts been rendered to other co-owners; and that such accounts were open and unsettled; and that the Defendant had paid to the Plaintiffs only the sum of 337 on account of the earnings of the ship. The Plaintiffs set forth a correspondence which had taken place since the return of the ship, by which it appeared that the Defendant had refused to deliver the log-book or the bills of lading to the Plaintiffs. It appeared also that the Plaintiffs had been forcibly prevented from keeping a man on board the ship to retain possession; and that the ship had been removed to Kotherhithe, and extensively repaired. The bill and affidavit alleged that the ship was advertised to sail on the 20th of January, for Shanghae, under the command of one John Dunn, [91] who was unknown to the Plaintiffs; and that the Plaintiffs believed the Defendant, Cook...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tunas (Pte) Ltd v Mayer Investments Pte Ltd and Others
... ... as well as the proposition that failure to do so can preclude a court dealing with the application on its merits or lack of them.In Castelli v Cook (1849) 7 Hare 89 at p 94, Sir James Wigram, Vice Chancellor, said: ... The rule, as I understand it, is this: that a plaintiff ... ...
- Poh Ah Choo v Tan Siew Gim and Others
-
Jain v Trent Strategic Health Authority
...1 WLR 1443, at 1453, Robert Walker LJ described the duty of full and frank disclosure as “compelling”. This principle went back to Castelli v. Cook (1849) 7 Hare 89 and to R v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, ex p. de Polignac (Princess) [1917] 1 KB 486, 509 in which Warrington LJ held......
-
Bahtera Offshore (M) Sdn Bhd v Sim Kok Beng
...Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG [2009] 3 SLR (R) 452; [2009] 3 SLR 452 (refd) Brink's Mat Ltd v Elcombe [1988] 1 WLR 1350 (folld) Castelli v Cook (1849) 7 Hare 89; 68 ER 36 (refd) Chew Kong Huat v Ricwil (Singapore) Pte Ltd [1999] 3 SLR (R) 1167; [2000] 1 SLR 385 (folld) Choy Chee Keen Collin v Publ......