Davis v Garrett
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1830 |
| Date | 01 January 1830 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 1456
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 4 Moo. & P. 540; 8 L. J. C. P. (O.S.) 253. Distinguished, Taylor v; Great Northern Railway, 1866, L. R. I C. P. 388. Referred to, Grill v. General Iron Screw Collier Company, 1866-68, L. R. I C. P. 613; L. R. 3 C. P. 476; Harris v. Great Western Railway, 1876. I Q. B. D. 534. Approved and followed, Scaramanaga v. Stamp, 1880. 5 C. P. D. 299. Applied Lilley v. Doubleday, 1881, 7 Q. B. D. 511; Svedon v. Wallace, 1885, 10 App. Cas. 412; Royal Exchange Shipping Company v. Dixon, 1886, 12 App Cas. 19.
- V:[716] davis v. garrett. 1830. L J ia'1 [S. C. 4 Moo. & P. 540 ; 8 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 263. Distinguished, Taylor v. Great Northern Railway, 1866, L. R. 1 C. P. 388. Referred to, Qrill v. General htm Screw Collier Company, 1866-68, L. R. 1 C. P. 613 ; L. R 3 C. P. 476; Harris v. Great Western Railway, 1876, I Q. B. D. 534. Approved and followed, Scaramanga v. Stamp, 1880, 5 C. P. D. 299. Applied, Lilley v. Doubleday, 1881, 7 Q. B. D. 511 ; Svenden v. Wallace, 1885, 10 App. Gas. 412; Royal Exchange Shipping Company v. Dixon, 1886, 12 App. Gas. 19.] Plaintiff put on board Defendant's barge, lime, to be conveyed from the Medway to London. The master of the barge deviated unnecessarily from the usual course, and during the deviation a tempest wetted the lime, aud the barge taking fire thereby, the whole was lost:-Held, that the Defendant was liable, and the cause of loss sufficiently proximate to entitle Plaintiff to recover under a declaration alleging the Defendant'* duty to carry the lime without unnecessary deviation, and averring a loss by unnecessary deviation.-2. The law implies a duty on the owner of a vessel, whether a general ship or hired for the special purpose of the voyage, to proceed without unnecessary deviation in the usual course. Tat deolaratiqn stated, that theretofore, to wit, on the 22d day of January 1829, at London, in thef parish of St. Mary-le-Bow, in the ward of Cheap, the Plaintiff, at the special instance and request of the Defendant, delivered to the Defendant on board a certain barge or vessel of the Defendant called the " Safety," and the Defendant then and there bad and received in and on board of the said barge or vessel from the Plaintiff a large quantity, to wit, I14J tons of lime of the Plaintiff of great value, to wit, of 6BINO. TIT. DAVIS V. GARRETT 1457 the value of 1001., to be by the Defendant carried and conveyed in and on board the said barge or vessel from a certain place, to wit, Bewly Cliff in the county of Kent, to the Regent's Canal in the county of Middlesex, the act of God, the king's enemies, fire, and all and every other dangers and accidents of the seas, rivers, and navigation, of what nature or kind soever excepted, for certain reasonable reward to be therefore paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant: that the said barge or vessel afterwards, to wit, on, &c. at, &c. departed and set sail on the intended voyage, then and there having the said lime on board of the same to be carried and conveyed as aforesaid, except as aforesaid, and it thereby then and there became and was the duty of the Defendant to have carried and conveyed the said lime on board of the said barge or vessel from Bewly Cliff to the Regent's Canal, the act of God, and such other matters and things excepted, as were above mentioned to have [717] been excepted, by and according to the direct, uaual, and customary way, course, and passage, without any voluntary and unnecessary deviation or departure from, or delay or hindrance in the same: but the Defendant, not regarding his duty in that behalf, but contriving and wrongfully intending to injure and prejudice the Plaintiff in that respect, did not c&rry or convey the said lime on board of the barge or vessel from Bewly Cliff aforesaid to the Regent's Canal, although not prevented by the acts, matters, or things excepted as aforesaid, or any of them...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Spain v Union Steamship Company of New Zealand Ltd
-
Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company
...Tanker Corp Inc (The Borag)WLR [1981] 1 WLR 274. Cutler v Vauxhall Motors LtdELR [1971] 1 QB 418. Davis v GarrettENRENR (1830) 6 Bing 716; 130 ER 1456. Dodd Properties (Kent) Ltd v Canterbury City CouncilWLR [1980] 1 WLR 433. Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home OfficeELR [1970] AC 1004. Douglas Vall......
-
Yeoman Credit Ltd v Apps
...Insurance (Marine Insurance Act, 1906, sections 45-48) carriage by sea and river ( Morrison & Co. v. Shaw, Savill & Albion Company, Davis v. Garrott) by land ( Mallet v. Great Eastern Railway Company, Lilley v. Doubleday) and contracts of Bailment. 'The principle is well- known, and perhaps......
-
Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Company (Nos 4 & 5)
...chain of causation. Rather, we think that in this respect the law is similar to that applied in deviation cases: see Davis v Garrett (1830) 6 Bing 716. We will revert to this topic at paragraphs 609–614 45The financial claims 547 For the reasons we have given, the Iraqi law of usurpation ba......
-
Carriage of Goods under Bills of Lading and Similar Documents
...Tetley, above note 156 at 750-51 suggests today all jurisdictions require a causal connection. 351 Davis v. Garrett (1830), 6 Bing. 716, 130 E.R. 1456; James Morrison & Co. v. Shaw, Savill and Albion Co. Ltd., [1916] 2 K.B. 783 (C.A.). 352 See above D(5), "Delay in Delivery." 476 MARITIME L......
-
Carriage of Goods by Charterparty
...Sons &> Co. v. Xantho (The) (1887), 12 App. Cas. 503; and Paterson Steamships, above note 19. 24 Davis v. Garrett (1830), 6 Bing. 716, 130 E.R. 1456. 25 Discussed below in B(4), " Delay in Delivery." 26 Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v. Black Sea and Baltic General Insurance Co., [1939] A.C. 562 [......