Glynn v Margetson & Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 January 1892 |
| Date | 22 January 1892 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Court of Appeal
Lord Esher, M.R., Bowen and Fry, L.JJ.
Margetson and others v. Glynn and others
Leduc v. WardDID=ASPMELR 58 L. T. Rep. N. S. 908 6 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 290 20 Q. B. Div. 475
Gairdner v. SenhouseENR 3 Taunt 419
Bill of lading — Contract contained in — Description of voyage
Leduc v. Ward (58 L. T. Rep. N. S. 908; 6 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 290; 20 Q. B. Div. 475) followed.
148 MARITIME LAW CASES. CT. OF APP.] MARGETSON AND OTHERS V. GLYNN AND OTHERS. [CT. OF APP. Friday, Jan. 22,1892. (Before Lord Eshee, M.E., Bowen and Far, L. JJ.) MargBtSON AND OTHERS V. Glynn AND OTHERS. (A) APPLICATION FOE A NSW TRIAL. Bill of lading - Contract contained in - Description of voyage - Clause as to deviation - Wide general words in - Construction of. Oranges were shipped by the plaintiffs on a steamer belonging to the defendants, at Malaga, for conveyance to Liverpool. A bill of lading was given as follows: " Snipped ... upon the Zona now lying in the port of Malaga and bound for Liverpool with liberty to prcseed to and stay at any port or ports many rotation in the Mediterranean, Levant, Black Sea, or Adriatic, or on the coasts of Africa, Spain, Portugal, Francs, Great Britain, and Ireland, for the purpose of delivering coals, cargo, or passengers, or for any other purpose whatsoever." On leaving Malaga the steamer, instead of sailing for Liverpool, proceeded to Burriana, a port on the coart of Spain to the north-east of Malaga, and about two days' voyage from Malaga in the contrary direction to Liverpool, and sailed thence to Liverpool. Owing to the delay thus caused, the oranges were much damaged when they arrived at Liverpool. Held (affirming the decision of Hawkins, J.), that the general words in the demotion clause must be construed with reference to, and be limited by, the voyage agreed upon, which was from Malaga to Liverpool, and would therefore only justify a deviation to any port fairly on the course of the agreed voyage, and that the defendants were therefore liable for the damage to the oranges. Leduc v. Ward (58 L. T. Sep. N. S. 908; 6 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 290; 20 Q.B,Div. 475)followed. This was an application by the defendants, except Bevan and Co., for judgment or a new trial, on appeal from the verdict and judgment at the trial before Hawkins, J. and a special jury in Middlesex. This was an action brought to recover damages in respect of injury to certain cases of oranges which were shipped on board the steamer Zona for the purpose of being carried from Malaga to Liverpool, and it was alleged that by breach of contract the oranges were damaged by being carried to Burriana before proceeding to Liverpool, whereby they were kept in the hold of the vessel for a longer period than they ought to have been, and many became rotten. The plaintiff Margetson was a fruit merchant in London; the plaintiff Solis was his agent at Malaga for shipping oranges; and the other plaintiffs were three Spaniards who were the growers and owners of the oranges in question. The defendants Messrs. Glynn and Co. were managers of an association which owned a line of steamers, one of which was the vessel on which these oranges were shipped; the association were also defendants in the action The defendants Bevan and Go. were the agents at Malaga for this association. Margetson, through Solis, had made advances upon these oranges before they were shipped. On the 4th April 1888 about nine hundred oases of oranges were shipped by the Spanish plaintiffs on board the Zona...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frenkel v MacAndrews & Company
...in their favour, and of these the most important are: 7 Leduc v. Ward , 20 Queen's Bench Division, page 475, and Glynn v. Margetson, 1892, 1 Q.B. 337. In the former case goods were shipped for delivery at Dunkirk on a vessel lying at Fiume and bound for Dunkirk with liberty to call at any p......
-
Stag Line Ltd v Foscolo, Mango & Company Ltd
...(1928) 2 K. B. 424 Attorney-General v. SeccombeELR 105 L. T. Rep. 18 (1911) 2 K. B., at pp. 702 Margetson v. Glynn and Co.DID=ASPM 7 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 148 66 L. T. Rep. 144 (1892)1 Q. B. 337 Moore v. MagrathENR (1774, 1 Cowp. 9) Hick v. RaymondDID=ASPM 7 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 233 68 L. T. Rep......
-
Swiss Re International Se v LCA Marrickville Pty Limited (Second COVID-19 insurance test cases)
...v Icon Co (NSW) Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 126 Lojinska Plovidba v Transco Overseas Ltd (The Orjula) [1995] 2 Lloyds Rep 395 Margetson v Glynn [1892] 1 QB 337 Maxwell v Highway Hauliers Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 33; (2014) 252 CLR 590 McCann v Switzerland Insurance Australia Limited [2000] HCA 65; (2000......
-
Renton (G H) & Company Ltd v Palmyra Trading Corporation of Panama (Caspiana)
...Q.B.D. 475 at pages 480. 481. We were also referred to various passages in the judgments in Margetson v. Glynn in the Court of Appeal ([1892]) 1 Q.B., 337) and to the speeches in this House, especially to that of Lord Halsbury, where he says ( [1893] A.C. 357): "Looking at the whole of the......