Glaholm v Barker
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1865 |
| Date | 01 January 1865 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 55 E.R. 653
ROLLS COURT
Affirmed, L. R. 1 Ch. 223. For subsequent proceedings, see L. R. 2 Eq. 598. See London and South-Western Railway v. James, 1872, L. R. 8 Ch. 251.
[305] glaholm v. barker. March 22, April 24, 1865. [Affirmed, L. R. I Ch. 223. For subsequent proceedings, see L. R. 2 Eq. 598. See London and South-Western fiailway v. James, 1872, L. R. 8 Ch. 251.] Under "The Merchant Shipping Amendment Act, 1862 " (25 & 26 Viet. c. 63, s. 54), the liability of the owners of a ship wrongfully occasioning loss of life to the " crew " of another ship is limited to £15 and not £8 per ton. The question raised in this suit, upon the Shipping Acts, was as to the extent of the liability of shipowners in damages, for the loss of life to the crew of another ship, which had been sunk in a collision. It arose under the following circumstances :- In the month of February 1864 the brig "Edith Murray," being in ballast, ran into and sank a collier, named the "Thomas Barker," laden with coal, and having no passengers aboard, whereby the crew of the latter, with the exception of two, perished. The number of the crew which so perished was eight, and their representatives commenced actions at law against the owner of the " Edith Murray " to recover compensation, under the provisions of Lord Campbell's Act. The owners of the "Edith Murray" thereupon instituted this suit, under the 17 ò& 18 Viet. c. 104, s. 514, "for the purpose of determining the amount of such liability and for the distribution of such amount rateably among the several claimants," and for an injunction to stay the actions. The Plaintiffs insisted either that the right of the representatives of the deceased ò" crew " to bring such action was put an end to altogether, or that the whole [306] liability of the owners, in respect of the loss by the collision, was limited to £8 per ton, according to the tonnage of their ship. The Defendants, on the contrary, insisted that they were entitled to recover from the shipowners to the extent of £15 per ton. The question depended on the several Acts of Parliament regulating this matter, to which it is necessary to refer. The liability of shipowners for the defaults of their servants was originally unlimited. But, by the 7 Geo. 2, c. 15, their liability for any loss or damage, by-reason of any embezzlement, &c., by the master or mariners, of any goods shipped, " or for any act, matter or thing, damages or forfeiture done, occasioned or incurred," by the " master or mariners," was limited to " the value of the ship or vessel with her appurtenances, and the full amount of the freight." In 1846 Lord Campbell's Act (9 & 10 Viet. c. 93) passed, whereby the families of persons killed by " wrongful act, neglect or default" were enabled to maintain actions for compensation. In 1854 "The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854," passed (17 & 18 Viet. c. 104), which, by Part IX., limited the liability of shipowners, the 504th section, among other cases, providing that no shipowner should, " (4) where any loss of life or personal injury is, by reason of the improper navigation of such sea-going ships aforesaid, caused to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
James v The London and South-Western Railway Company
...(Selborne) and the Lords Justices The London and South-Western Railway Company v. James Glaholm v. BarkerENR 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 200 34 Beav. 305 Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 63), s. 54 Limitation of liability Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act 1862 (25 & 26......
- Mathieson v Burton