Haines v Busk
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 May 1814 |
| Date | 09 May 1814 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 128 E.R. 793
Common Pleas Division
S. C. 1 Marsh, 191.
out ; in the last case the officer also spoke to the leaving a summons with a servant at the dwelling-house after several vain attempts to serve the Defendant personally; arid each of the deponents verily be-[521]-lieved that at the times when he so went, the Defendant was purposely absent from home, and avoided being seen, to prevent his being arrested, or served with process for debt. The Court held that the affidavits were iusufficient, inasmuch as the deponents did not therein state the facts on which they founded their belief. The Court had sometimes refused the rule, because the deponent had not sworn to his belief that the Defendant absconds, but they had never said that it was sufficient that he should so swear, without showing the facts on which he is led to believe that the Defendant absconds. The intent of the proceeding is, that the affidavit may lay before the Court such facts, as will enable themselves to judge whether there is sufficient reason for the inference, that the Defendant keeps out of the way to avoid process. Rule refused in both cases. HAINES v. BUSK. May 9, 1814. IS. C. 1 Marsh. 1911 It is no answer to an action by a broker for commission for procuring freight, that the charter-party procured was such, that if the charterer failed to obtain certain licences, the voyage would be illegal. Indebitatus assumpsit for the commission and brokerage due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff for having procured a certain ship called the "Amelia" to be hired and chartered upon freight for certain voyages at the Defendant's request. The cause was tried at the sittings after Hilary term 1814, before Dallas J. It was proved that the Plaintiff had, in December 1812, procured for the Defendant an agreement for a charter-party for the good Russian vessel the "Amelia," then in the Thames, of which the Defendant was the correspondent, whereby the Defendant agreed that the ship should proceed in ballast to Charlestown, South Carolina, there to be loaded with a complete cargo of permitted goods, and therewith to proceed to Cadiz, Lisbon, or one port in the United [522] Kingdom, or Gottenburgh, either to he named, if possible, before leaving Charlestown, and to deliver her cargo on paymeut of the freight stipulated, viz. 8 guineas per ton of rice to Cadiz, Lisbon, and a port of the United Kingdom, or 9 guineas per ton of rice to Gottenburgb, If other goods than rice were laden, freight was to be paid for the complement of 250 tons after the same rate as for rice: the vessel was to be addressed to the correspondents of the freighters at Charlestown, and at the port of unloading, except it were London. The vessel was to carry no British licence, neither copy nor memorandum of the engagement to proceed to British port. The master was to receive at Charlestown instructions whether to touch at Cadiz, for orders to unload there, or at Lisbon, or whether to touch at Cork, for orders to unload in one port of the United Kingdom, or at Gotten-burgh, but the vessel should in no case be caused to touch at both Cadiz and Cork for orders. The agreement was signed by both parties, but they afterwards differed upon the drawing up of the charter-party by a notary, and never executed it, nor did the ship ever sail on the voyage ; and the Plaintiff contended that he bad performed in procuring this agreement, all which it belonged to his province to perform, and sufficient to entitle himself to his usual commission as a broker of two and a half per cent, on the amount of the stipulated freight. It was proved that the ship was Russian bore the Russian flag, and was Russian owned ; she was partly the property of the Defendant, a Russian resident in London, It was the intention of the freighters and defendant, that the ship should proceed to Charlestown to take in cotton wool, and carry it to Ireland. There was at that time war between England and America. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Regan v White
...(5) L. R. 8 Eq. 673. (6) [1897] 2 Ch., at p. 21. (7) [1905] A. C., at. pp. 89, 90. (8) [1915] A. C., at p. 449. (1) 4 M. & W. 654. (2) 5 Taunt. 521. (3) L. R. 8 Q. B. (1) I. R. 5 Eq. 613. (1) 2 Sm. & Giff. 437. (1) 1 M. & W. 695. (2) 13 East, 210. (1) 8 A. C., at p. 479. (2) 1 Sw. 181. (3) ......
-
County Dublin County Council v HM Postmaster-General
...some embarrassment on that point, and I accordingly dismiss the action without costs. C. N. K. (1) Before Dodd, J. (1) 4 Taunt. 856. (2) 5 Taunt. 521. (3) 13 Q. B. D. (4) 9 Cox, 174. (5) 2 B. & S. 640. (6) L. R. 10 Q. B. 92. (7) 7 T. L. R. 443. (8) [1902] 1 I. R. 13. (9) 10 Ry. & Ca. Cases,......
-
Doody v Nolan
...624. Hayne v. MaltbyENR 3 T. R. 438. Donoughmore v. ForrestUNK Ir. R. 5 C. L. 443. Tobin v. ClearyUNK Ir. R. 7 C. L. 17. Haines v. BuskENR 5 Taunt. 521. Wetherell v. JonesENR 3 B. & Ad. 221. Waugh v. MorrisELR L. R. 8 Q. B. 202. Bartlett v. VinorENR Carth. 252. Troy v. Kirk Alc. & Nap. 326.......
- Langley v Foster