Dormer Sheppard et Al v Joseph wright et Al
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1698 |
| Date | 01 January 1698 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 1 E.R. 13
House of Lords
Mew's Dig. xiii. 580; 16 Lds. Jo. 309.
SHEPPARD V.- WRIGHT [1698] SHOWER. dormer sheppard & al' v. joseph wright & al' [1698]. [Mew's Dig. xiii. 580; 16 Lds. Jo. 309.] whether average be allowable in all cases of a partial Loss at sea.- Appeal from a Decree of Dismission of a Bill preferred in the Court of Chancery: The Case was thus : The Appellants did in the Year 1693. load on Board the Ship Union at Gallipoly 210 Tuns of Oils, of which Ship the Appellants were Owners; and the Eespondents loaded on Board her at Messina 85 Bales of Silk, upon Freight by Contract, both to be delivered at London. The Ship homeward bound was chased into Malaga Mole by one of the Thoulon Fleet, who were three or four Days in Sight, then stood in for that Port, as if they designed to attack the Fort; and thereupon the Master discoursed the Owners Factor, who sent him off a Lighter to save what they could of the Ship's Cargo; and because the Silk was of the greatest Value, the Silk was put on Board the Lighter, and carried ashore; and to come at the Silk, (for it lay beyoiid the Oils) they were forced to rummage the Ship: In saving of which, and some small Part of the Oils, many Hours were spent, and by the Seamen only, and at Night the French left the Port, whereupon no more was landed. But about six Days afterwards the French Fleet appeared again before Malaya, and then all Endeavours were used to save the Oils, but they were prevented by the Boats which the French Men of War sent into the Harbour, and the Enemy forced them to their Guns, and when they could defend the Ship no longer, they bored Holes to sink her, but the Oils kept her from sinking, and the French took her, and carried her away. The Bales of Silk were afterwards put on board another Ship, and delivered to the Respondents at London, for which they paid the Freight, &c. [19] The Appellants pretending that they ought to have a Share of the Silk which was saved, in Proportion to the Value of the Ship and Oils which were lost, they exhibited their Bill in Chancery, to inforce the Respondents to come to an Average with the Appellants for the Loss of their Ship and Oils. And after Examination of Witnesses, on the Hearing of the Cause, the Bill was dismissed. argument for appellants.-And it was argued on the Behalf of the Appellants, That this Dismission was not justifiable by the Rules of Equity; for that...
To continue reading
Request your trial