Hartley v Ponsonby
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 June 1857 |
| Date | 04 June 1857 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 119 E.R. 1471
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 26 L. J. Q. B. 322; 3 Jur. N. S. 746; 5 W. R. 659.
hartley against ponsonby. Thursday, June 4th, 1857. A vessel, in consequence of the desertion of some of the seamen, was left short of hands in harbour, before the voyage was completed. The master, to induce the remaining seamen to perform the rest of the voyage, promised to pay them a sum of money in addition to their wages. They accordingly performed the rest of the voyage with the diminished number of hands.-On ati action by one of the seamen against the master for the sum promised, the jury found that be made the agreement without coercion, for the best interests of the owners; that he could not have obtained additional hands at a reasonable price ; arid that it was unreasonable for so large a ship to proceed on the completion of the voyage with the diminished number of hands.-Held, that on this finding, which the Court understood to mean that it was unsafe so to proceed, the plaintiff was entitled to recover, as the seamen were not bound, by their original contract of service, to proceed with the diminished number of hands; and their undertaking to do so was therefore a good consideration for the master's promise. [S. C. 26 L. J. Q. B. 322; 3 Jur. N. S. 746; 5 W. B. 659.] The first count of the declaration alleged that defendant promised plaintjff to pay to plaintiff in Liverpool 401., provided plaintiff would assist in [873] taking the ship "Mobile" from the port of Port Philip in Australia to Bombay in the;East Indies, with a crew of nineteen bands. Averment: that, before this suit, he performed all things on his part to be performed to entitle him to the payment of the said sum of 401., according to the terms and true intent and meaning of the said promise of defendant; of which defendant had notice: and a reasonable time for the payment thereof elapsed before this suit. Breach : that defendant had not paid the same or any part thereof. Pleas. 1. Non assumpsit. 2. To first count: That, by virtue of certain ship's articles made and entered into between plaintiff and defendant, and signed by plaintiff, and which, were in force at the times in the first count mentioned, plaintiff, at the times aforesaid, was bound, if required by defendant to perform, and defendant, at the said times, bad a right to require plaintiff to perform, the matter mentioned or referred to in the said first count as the consideration for the supposed promise : and there was no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hanafiah, Raslan, Mohamed & Partners v Weng Lok Mining Company Ltd
-
R v Kuyler
...van art. 33 (2) van Ord. 17 van 1931 (T) - ook 'n ekwivalent van art. 113 (2) - gehandhaaf en MALAN, R. soos hy toe was, het die volgende op bl. 872 gesê: 'On behalf of the accused Mr. Preiss has contended that the section was 1960 (3) SA p840 De Villiers R intended to strike merely the cas......
-
The "Harriet"
... ... Woolnwre (5 Esp 87) In Hams v Carter (3 E. & B. 559), a promise by the master of extra wages was held invalid ; and in Hartley v. Ponsonby (7 E. & B. 878), where the extra wages were allowed, it was only because " the manners not being bound to go on, were to all intents and ... ...
-
Liston v Owners of Carpathian
...Thompson v. 11. and W. Nelson Limited, 108 L. T. Rep. 347; (1913) 2 K. B. S23 ; Harris v. Carter, 3 El. & Bl. 559; Hartley v. Ponsonby, 7 El. & Bl. 872; The Araminta, 13 Jur. 793. COLERIDGE, J. - This case raises an important point involving questions of both law and fact. The plaintiffs, s......
-
Consideration and Form
...not, therefore, required by their contract of employment to go to sea in such circumstances. See Hartley v Ponsonby (1857), 7 E & B 872, 119 ER 1471 (KB). 163 Stilk v Myrick , above note 160. THE LAW OF CONTR ACTS 268 The shift effected in Stilk v Myrick from a rule based on policy concerns......
-
Of what practical benefit is practical benefit to consideration?
...606 (Ont CA) [Gilbert]. (3) Lampleigh v Braithwait (1615), Hobart 105, 80 ER 255 (KB). (4) Hartley v Ponsonby(1857), 7 El & B1 872, 119 ER 1471 (5) These two possibilities were identified by the Ontario Law Reform Commission in Report on Amendment of the Law of Contract (Toronto: Minist......