Gibson v Ingo
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 April 1847 |
| Date | 14 April 1847 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 67 E.R. 1103
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. reversed, 2 Ph. 402; 41 E. R. 998. See The Celtic King [1894], P. 186.
[112] gibson v. ingo. Jan. 27, 28, 29, 30, April 14, 1847. [S. C. reversed, 2 Ph. 402; 41 E. R. 998. See The Celtic King [1894], P. 186.] There is nothing in the character or nature of the certificate of registry of a ship which excludes it from the jurisdiction of the Court to decree its delivery as against a party unlawfully detaining it. The master of a ship has no lien on the certificate of registry, either for his wages or for monies disbursed by him for the use of the ship; nor have the shipbrokers any lien on the certificate of registry for advances made by them to the owner for the use of the ship. The master of a ship has no claim on the accruing freight, either for his wages or for monies disbursed by him for the use of the ship. Shipbrokers advancing monies to the owner of a ship for the ship's use, having at the same time notice (by an indorsement on the certificate of registry) of a prior mortgage on the ship, are not entitled to be repaid their advances out of the freight in priority to the mortgagee, although the mortgagee does not take possession of the ship until after she has entered the docks from her homeward voyage. The vendor of a ship, with a covenant for title, retains, after the sale (in order that he may fulfil his contract, and defend himself against an action brought upon his covenant), such an interest in the certificate of registry as enables him to sustain a suit for its delivery against a party unlawfully detaining it. Notice of a charge to an indefinite amount, although the notice be inaccurate as to the particulars or extent of the charge, is sufficient to put upon inquiry a party dealing for the property subject to the charge ; and if the actual charge afterwards . appears to be incorrectly described in the notice, it is nevertheless sufficient, as a ground for giving priority for the true amount of the charge, as against the party who received the incorrect notice, but made no inquiry. The Defendant, Ingo, the owner of the ship " Ann M'Kenzie," of Newcastle, in October 1839 mortgaged the ship, together with all her freight then due or to become 1104 GIBSON V. INGO 6 HAKE, 113. due to the Plaintiff, Gibson, for securing to the latter payment of four bills of exchange of 600 each. The mortgage deed was executed, and the mortgage indorsed on the certificate of registry in July 1840. The indorsement stated the mortgage to be for securing payment of 600, and all sums of money which might thereafter become due to Gibson. By a charter-party, dated the 5th of August 1840, made between Ingo and Messrs. Gould & Dowie, the ship was chartered for a voyage to America and back, to be reported on her return, at the Custom House, in London, by the Defendants, Carter & Bonus, shipbrokers, and the freight to be paid on " unloading and right delivery of the cargo." The stipulation in favour of the shipbrokers, Carter & Bonus, was introduced by agreement between them and Ingo, in consideration of their having, at the time of making the charter-party, advanced Ingo 50 in cash, and paid some other sums, part of which it appeared had been for the purposes of the ship, and for enabling her to proceed on the outward voyage. The Defendant, Simpson, was the master of the ship, and he also made some advances for the like purposes. [113] The "Ann M'Kenzie" performed her voyage, in pursuance of the charter-party, and arrived at the port of London on the 9th of January 1841, and entered the Commercial Docks on the following day. On the llth of January an agent of the Plaintiff, on his behalf, went on board, and demanded from Simpson possession of the ship, and also of the certificate of registry and ship's papers. The demand was not acceded to, but the Plaintiff's agent was allowed to put on board a shipkeeper, to hold possession on his behalf; and the Plaintiffs solicitor gave notice to Gould & Dowie, the charterers, to whom the cargo was consigned, and also to the Dock Company, of the Plaintiff's claim to the freight under his mortgage. Various proceedings afterwards took place before the magistrates, at the police office, and otherwise, to compel Simpson to deliver the certificate of registry to the Plaintiff, and to determine the questions between the parties. Simpson resisted these proceedings on the ground that both he and Carter & Bonus, the shipbrokers, had come under advances and incurred liabilities on account of the ship, and that they were entitled to retain the certificate of registry, and also to prevent the freight and earnings of the ship from being paid over to the Plaintiff, until their (Simpson's and Carter & Bonus's) claims were satisfied. The sum claimed by Simpson was 86, the greater part of which consisted of his wages for the voyage, and the remainder, of monies expended for the use of the ship. Carter & Bonus claimed 95, 10s. 2d. The magistrates refused to interfere. The four bills of exchange became due, and were dishonoured; and on the 23d of November 1841 the Plaintiff exercised the power of sale in his mortgage deed, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bristow v Whitmore
...against any costs or damages in the action. He became their agent the moment they took possession. They also referred to Gibson v. Ingo (6 Hare, 112); Atkinson v. Cotesworth (3 B. & C. 647); Higgins v. Senior (8 M. & W. 834); Beckham \. Drake (9 M. & W. 79); Case v. Damson (5 M. & S. 79); M......
-
Alexander v Simms
...the vessel 1 They also referred to and commented upon Goto v. Irving (5 De G. & Sm. 210), Green v. Briggs (6 Hare, 395); Gibson v. Ingo (6 Hare, 112); Ludgett v. Williams (4 Hare, 456); Kerswill r. Bishop (2 Cro. & Jer. 529); Helme v. Smith (7 Bing. 709); Keeck v. Hall (Daugl. 21, and 1 Smi......
-
The Celtic King
...Divorce, and Admiralty Division Barnes, J. The Celtic King Gibson v. IngoENR 6 Hare, 112 De Mattos v. GibsonUNK 28 L. J. 165 Collins v. Lamport 34 L. J. Ch. Div. 196 Merchant Shipping Act 1854, s. 50. Mortgage — Prior charter — Sale by mortgagees 440 MARITIME LAW Cases. ADM.] The Celtic Kin......
-
The Master of Keeper, Fellows and Scholars of Clare Hall v Harding
...called upon to do so, or has not himself sustained any injury : Pdgby v. Great Western Railway Company (2 Phill. 49 ; see Gibson v. Ingo, 6 Hare, 112). 6 HARE, 286. THE MASTER, ETC., OF CLARE HALL V. HARDING 1175 Mr. Eolt and Mr. Hare, for the Plaintiffs, in support of the bill. The bill se......