Compania Sansinena de Carnes Congeladas v Houlder Brothers and Company Ltd and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 June 1910 |
| Date | 01 June 1910 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Court of Appeal
Vaughan Williams, Fletcher Moulton, and Buckley, L.JJ.
Compania Sansinena de Carnes Congeladas v. Houlder Brothers and Co. Limited and others
Frankenberg v. Great Horseless Carriage Company LimitedELR 81 L. T. Rep. 684 (1900) 1 Q. B. 504
Smurthwaite and others v. Hannay and others 71 L. T. Rep. 157 (1894) A. C. 494
Sadler v. Great Western Railway Company 71 L. T. Rep. 561 (1896) A. C. 450
Child v. Stenning 40 L. T. Rep. 302 5 Ch. Div. 695
Bullock v. London General Omnibus Co.ELR 95 L. T. Rep. 905 (1907) 1 K. B. 264
Thompson and another v. London County CouncilELR 80 L. T. Rep. 684 (1900) 1 Q. B. 504
Order XVI., rr. 1, 4, 7. (Rules of the Supreme Court, SI 1897/792)
Practice — Parties — Joinder of several defendante
Smurthwaite and others v. Hannay and others (71 L. T. Rep. 157; (1894) A. C. 494) and Sadler v. Great Western Railway Company (71 L. T. Rep. 561; (1896) A. C. 450) discussed and distinguished.
Frankenberg v. Great Horseless Carriage Company Limited (81 L. T. Rep. 684; (1900) 1 Q. B. 504 and Bullock v. London General Omnibus Company and others (95 L. T. Rep. 905; (1907) 1 K. B. 264) followed.
Child v. Stenning (40 L. T. Rep. 302; 5 Ch. Div. 695) approved.
MARITIME LAW CASES. 525 APP.] COMPANIA SANSINENA DE CARNRE CONGRLADAS v.HOULDER BROS.&CO.,&c. [APP Supreme Court of Judicature. COURT OF APPEAL. Wednesday, June 1, 1910. (Before VAUgHAH WILLIAMS, FLETCHER FOTLTON, and BUcKLeY, LJJ.) Compania Sansinena. De Carnes Conge-LADAS v. HOULDER BROTHERS AND Co. LIMITED AND OTHERS. (a) APPEAL FROM THRE KING'S BENCH DIVISION. Practice - Partiet - Joinderof teveral defendants - Alternative relief claimed against defendants - Differrent causes of action - Order XVI., rr. 1, 47. Order XVI.it not confined to joinder of parties, and the effect of rule thereof it that penone may be joined at defendants in the tame action in respect of causes of action which an not neeeitarUy United by the tame state offaett, contracts, and circumstances. By a contract in writing made between the plain-tiffs, who were exporters of frozen meat, and the defendanti H. Brothers and Co. Limited, who were owners of a lint ofeteamen, the defendants agreed to carry from the Argentine to Europe froien meat to be shipped by the plaintiffs on certain stteamship named in the contract or on other editable steamers in addition to or sub-ttUntionfor the said named steameres. It was subseptentlv agreed between the plaintiff - and these defendants that they ihould provide the .belonging to the P. Steam Navigation Company Limited, in addition to the eteamehipe named in the contract, and that the plaintiffs should thip frozen meat by her for carriage to England on the terms set out in the contract. The plains/I duly thipped the frozen meat under bills of ?? in the form used by the H. Line. The frozen meat arrwed inEngland in a damaged condition. In an action brought by the plaintiffi in reepeet of the damage alleged to have been caused by the ?? of the D., they joined ae defendants S. Brothers and Co. Limited and the P. steam Navigation Company Limited, claiming damages againet the first named defendanti on a breach of the terms of the above' named contract, and againtt the second named defendanti on a breach of the contract contained in the bill of lading. Held, reverting the deeition of Hamilton, J., thatthe joinder of the defendants was right. Smnrthwaite and others V. Haunay and others (71 L. T. Rep. 157; (1894) A. C. 494) and Sadler v. Qmi Western Railway Company (71 L. T. Rep. 561; (1896) A. C. 450) discussed and distingused. ?? v. Great ?? Carriage Com-?? Limited (81 L. V. Rep. 684; (1900) 1 Q.B. 504) and Bollock v. London General Ommbiu Company and otbere (95 L. T. Rep. 905; (1907) 1 K. B. 264) followed. OhiJd v. Btenning (40 L. T. Rep. 302 ; 5 Ch. Div. 695) approvad. APpeAL by the plaintiffs from an order of Hamilton, J. in chambers, dated the 26th April 1910. wheroby he ordered that the Federal Steam Irrigation Company Limited be stuck out of the action ac defendants. The action was brought by the plaintiffs, a oompany eetabliahed in Boenoe Ayrea according to Argentine law and carrying on botineu as exporters of frozen meat to this country, against Honlder Brothers and Go. Limited, who ore ship-owners and managers of a lice of steamers trading to Boenos Ayres, and the Federal Steam Navigation Oompany Limited. The points of claim delivered were as follows ! - 1. The plaintiffs an a company established in ?? Ayres, and otrry on bnsicMi i - tt than and in London as ?? at to England. The defendants Houlder Brothers and Co. Limited an owners of a line of ?? trading to the Argentine, and to defcndanta the Federall Steam Kavigatlra Company are the omen of the steanuUp Devon. 2. By a contract in writing dated the 28rd Dec. 1908, and mads between the platntiffs and the defendants Houlder Brothers and Co. Umited, the said defendants agreed to carry from Buenos Ayres and (or) Bahia Blanea to Zorope fraaen meat to beenipped by the plaintiff* on oertaic steanships named in the eaid contract, or on other raitabla stoamen in addition to or inbetitation for the said named steamers, upon the terms set out in the said contract And it was a term of the said-contract that all abates and conditions therein contained should apply to eaeh steamer performing the service In question, esoh steamer being considered nnder the otatmot as a sepa-rate interest each voyage. 8. On the 21st Deo. 1908 it was verbally agreed between the plaintiffs and the defendants Honlder Brothers and Co. Limited, and this verbal agreement was subsequently confirmed in writing by a letter of the same date from the said defendants to the plaintiffs, that the said defen-teats should provide the Devon (then belonging to the tofendante the Federal Steam Navigation Company) in addition to the steamships named in the said contract to do service thereunder, and that the plaintiffs should ship by her 450 tons of meat at Bahia Blanea to be tarried to Avonmonth and (or) Liverpool. 4. The plaintiffs duly shipped at Bahia Blanea in good under and condition about 450 tons of frown meat on ihe Devon to be delivered in like good order and condition under bills of lading in the form used by the Houlder ?? dated the. 3rd Feb. 1909, but the said frosen meat arrived at Avonmonth and Liverpool worthless or in a ?? condition, whereby the plaintiffs ban suffered ?? . By act 2 of the said oontraot it was provided that be said steamer should be tight, staunch, and strong, lid in every way equipped for the voyage, and in the aspects set out in par. 7 the Devon was not properly quipped for the carriage of the eaid meat on the said oyage. 6. Further, it was an implied condition of the said cntract of carriage between the plaintiffs and the defen-ants Honlder Brother* and do. Limited, and it was an aplied condition of the contract of carriage expressed t the bills of lading referred to in pars. 4 and 8 hereof, lat the said steamer should be seaworthy. 7. The Devon at the commencement of the said Ojage was not seaworthy for the carriage of meat in lat aer main boilers and their respective furnaces wen ?? and worn out, and the boiler tabes and furnaces id oombvstion chambers wen scaled - - were in such mdition that they became blocked with salt, so that ?? said boOen wen not ir. a fit condition to maintain a ?? supply of steam to the refrigeratirg plant in ?? that a proper temperature might be maintained in ?? freezing chambers. (a) Reported by EDWARD J. M. CHAPLIN, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 526 MARITIME LAW CASES. APP.] COMPANIA SANSINENA DE CARNRE CONGRLADAS v.HOULDER BROS.&CO.,&c. [APP 8. Alternatively, the plaintiffs claim against the defendants the Federal Steam Navigation Company M owners of the Devon and say that the-maid goods wen received on board the venal of the said defendants in good order and condition, and the ?? of lading referred to in par. 4 hereof were signed on behalf of these defendants as owners of the .Devon by their agents duly authorised in that behalf. Particulars. - Fall particulars of the damage claimed hare been delivered to the defendants on or about the 4th Aug. 1909. The plaintiffs claim against the defendants Houlder Brother! and do. Limited and alternatively againit the defendant! the Federal Steam...
To continue reading
Request your trial