Harrison against Wright
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 February 1811 |
| Date | 11 February 1811 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 104 E.R. 402
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
harrison against wright. Monday, Feb. llth, 1811. In'assumpsit upon a memorandum for a charter-party, describing the agreement of the defendant, the shipowner, to proceed with all convenient speed to a foreign port, and there load, within 20 running days, a cargo from the plaintiff's factors, and therewith return home, and in 15 running days deliver the same, on payment of certain freight, concluding with a certain penalty for non-performance: held that the plaintiff might recover damages on the breach of the contract, in the defendant's not permitting the vessel to proceed on the voyage, beyond the amount of the penalty. The plaintiff declared in assumpsit upon the following agreement in writing:- "Copy of memorandum for charter-party. Hull, 27th of March 1809. It is this day mutually agreed between J. Wright, owner of the ship 'Hayle' of about 232 tons burthen, now lying at Shields, and whereof is master, and E. Harrison of Hull (the plaintiff), that the said ship, being tight, staunch and strong, and every way fitted for the voyage, shall, with all convenient speed, sail and proceed to Wester-wick in Sweden, or as near thereto as she can safely get, and there load in 20 running days (if not sooner dispatched) from the factors of the said R. Harrison, the freighter, a full and complete cargo of deals, but not exceeding what she can reasonably stow and carry over and above her tackle, &c.; and therewith return to Hull, and in 15 running days deliver the same, on being paid freight for the same, at the rate of 261. per hundred of 14 3-inch 9^ board deals [restraints of princes, dangers of seas, &c. excepted;] with 2-3ds port charges and pilotage as customary: one half of the said 13 EAST, 3. HARRISON V. WRIGHT . 403 freight to be paid on the unloading and right delivery, and the remainder in 4 months following. Demurrage 61. per day. Penalty for non-performance 13001. It is also further agreed between the said parties, that the said merchant [344] shall have liberty to keep the said ship 10 days on demurrage at 61. per day for every day's detention over and above the days aforesaid. If the vessel be loaded and delivered in 35 days, no demurrage to be charged."-And then the plaintiff alleged as a breach of such agreement, that the defendant did not permit the " Hayle " to sail or proceed on the said voyage; and laid his damages at 30001. At the trial at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
William Hyde, since Deceased, v Mary Price, John Price, William Price, William Mann Godshall, Thomas Shearcroft, Edward Walwyn Shepherd, and William John Playters, all since Deceased, and The Governor and Company of the Bank of England; and George Hart v Chase Cradock, William Temple, George Maule, and William Brown and Mary, his wife
...the penalty, he may proceed upon the covenant, and recover more or less than the penalty, Mies quoties. See further, Harrison v. Wright, 13 East, 343, which was assumpsit, and in which Wilbeoam v. Ashton, 1 Campbell, 78, was cited : this was also assumpsit, and Lord Ellen borough here said ......
-
Total Transport Corporation v Arcadia Petroleum Ltd
...(in particular in the copy given by Scrutton to F.D. Mackinnon, and now in the Inner Temple library). There is footnote reference to Harrison v. Wright (1811) 13 East 343, as well as later cases, in the 20th edition 57 Cooke & Others on Voyage Charters p.442 quotes at the head of a chapter ......
-
Gainsford v Griffith
...Where the penalty is contained in any other instrument than a bond, damages may be recovered beyond it; 1 Black. 895, Winter v. Trimmer. 13 East, 343, Harrison v. Wright; for the plaintiff has his option to sue either for the penalty or for the breach of contract. If he sue for the penalty ......
-
Stroms Bruk Aktie Bolag v John and Peter Hutchison (A Firm)
...Mar. Law Cas). 389: 15 L. T. Rep. 206; L. Rep. 5 H. L. 395; Gedard v. Gray, 24 L. T. Rep. 89; L. Sep. 6 Q. B. 139. Harrison. v. Wright, 13 East, 343; 12 E. R, 369; Dimech v. Corlett, 12 Moo. P. G. 199; Britith Columbia Sawmill Company v. Nettleship, 3 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 65: 18 L. T. Rep. 6......