G. Smith the Younger against B. Shaw, Treasurer of the Commercial Dock Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1829 |
| Date | 01 January 1829 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 453
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 5 Man. & Ry. 225; 8 L. J. K. B. O. S. 111.
G. smith the younger against B. shaw, Treasurer of the Commercial Dock Company. 1829. By an Act of Parliament, a company was established for making and maintaining certain docks and basins, and was authorized to appoint a dock-master, who was to have power to direct the mooring, unmooring, moving, and removing of all vessels into or being in the docks, and to have the control over the space of 100 yards of the entrances into the docks, so far as related to the transporting of vessels coming in or going out; and the company was to be sued in the name of their treasurer; and if any action should be brought against any person for any thing done in pursuance of the Act, such action should be commenced within six calendar months after the fact committed. An action having been brought against the treasurer for an injury done to a vessel (within 100 yards of the entrance of the docks) by reason of improper directions having been given by the dock-master in transporting her into the docks; it was held, that the giving of such directions was a thing done in pursuance of the Act of Parliament, and that the action ought therefore to have been brought within six calendar months after such directions were given. [S. C. 5 Man. & Ey. 225; 8 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 111.] Action on the case. The first count of the declaration, after stating that the Commercial Dock Company had extended and improved the docks and works mentioned in the Acts thereinafter referred to, alleged that a vessel belonging to the plaintiff was, on the 28th of June 1827, in the river Thames, and within one hundred yards of the entrance of the Commercial Docks; that the plaintiff was desirous of causing the vessel to enter the docks to unload; that the company had the care, charge, and management of unmooring, mooring, and transporting the said vessel into the said docks for that purpose, according to the said Acts of Parliament; and that the company so negligently, im-[278]-properly, and carelessly conducted themselves in the premises, and so negligently cast off certain ropes by which the said vessel was fastened to a certain capstan near the docks, that the vessel, by and through the negligence and improper conduct of the company and their dock-master in that behalf, took the ground and fell over on one side, and thereby sustained damage exceeding the sum of 51. There were other counts for the same injury, but varying the statement. Plea, not guilty. At the trial before Lord Tenterden C.J. at the London sittings before Hilary term 1829, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the damages in the declaration, (such damages to be afterwards more particularly ascertained by a reference,) and subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case:- The plaintiff was the owner of the "Rebecca" of 313 tons. The " Rebecca," on 454 SMITH V. SHAW 10 B. & C. 279. her homeward voyage from Dantzic, arrived in the river Thames the latter end of June 1827, and in the afternoon of the 28th of June was made fast to the buoy belonging to the Commercial Dock Company, it being the plaintiff's intention to discharge her cargo in that dock. In the same afternoon, an attempt was made by the dock company's servants, to take the vessel into dock; and in the course of such attempt, owing to the negligence of the persons employed by the company in that behalf, the injury was sustained which is detailed in the declaration. The defendant is the treasurer of the company, More than six months intervened between the time at which the injury was sustained and the commencement of the action. By an Act of the 50 G. 3, c. 207, intituled, "An Act for Maintaining and Improving the Docks and Ware-[279]-houses called the Commercial Docks, and for Making and Maintaining other Docks and Warehouses to Communicate therewith...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hardwick v Moss and Another
...of the 5 & 6 Wm. 4, c 50, but there the act complained of was committed in the course of his official duty. So m Smith v. tihaw (10 B. & C. 277), which was an action against a Dock Company for injury done to a vessel by reason of the improper directions of the Dock Master in transporting he......
-
Kent v The Great Western Railway Company
...would arise from the neglect to give the notice in such an action as this, as if it were an action of tort." So, in Smith v. Shaw (10 B. & C. 277, 5 M. & E. 225) an act of parliament established a company for making and maintaining certain docks and basins, and authorized them to appoint a ......
-
The Queen against Kelk
...21 Jac. 1, c. 12, s. 5, apply only to acts done in the character of an officer. In Waterhmse v. Keen (4 B. & C. 200), and Smith v. Shaw (10 B. & C. 277), Greenway v. Hurd (4 T. R. 553), was recognised; in which it was held that stat. 23 G. 3, c. 70, s. 30, requiring notice in the case of ac......
-
Williams against Clough, Clerk
...the case of a distress, which could not have been levied but under the powers and authorities given by the Act. (See Smith v. Shaw, 10 B. & C. 277. Lord Oakley v. The Kensington Carnal Company, 5 B. & Ad. 138.) Maule then contended that, if the waggons were let to hire at the time of the se......