Hill v Audus
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 January 1855 |
| Date | 31 January 1855 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 69 E.R. 456
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 3 Eq. R. 422; 24 L. J. Ch. 229; 3 W. R. 230. See The Mormandy, 1870, L. R. 3 Ad. & E. 157; James v. London and Southwestern Rail-way, 1872, L. R. 7 Ex. 196, 291.
The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, Part 9. Liability. Jurisdiction.
[263] hill v. audus and othees. Jan. 31, 1855. [S. C. 3 Eq. E. 422; 24 L. J. Ch. 229; 3 W. E. 230. See The Marmandy, 1870, L. E. 3 Ad. & E. 157 ; James v. London and Southwestern Bail-way, 1872, L. E. 7 Ex. 196, 291.] The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, Part 9. .Liability. Jurisdiction. In a bill filed under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, to stay actions in other Courts for damage occasioned by a collision with the Plaintiffs ship, and to have the alleged damage ascertained, the Plaintiff must aver that he has incurred liability in respect of some damage. The Plaintiff in this suit was the sole owner of the brig " Clara," registered at Sunderland, between which, and a ship called the " Eliza," of Selby, a collision took place at the mouth of the river Thames on the 23d of September 1854. The "Eliza" was laden with iron belonging to the South-Eastern Eailway Company; and the result of such collision was that the " Eliza " and her cargo were totally lost, and the wife and two children of the Defendant, Eobert Pearson, the master of the "Eliza," who were on board at the time, were unhappily drowned, and certain money, clothes and private effects, belonging partly to him and partly to others of the crew of the "Eliza," were lost, and some personal injury was also sustained by the said master. The actual value of the " Clara " at the time of such collision was 1250, and there was no freight due or to grow due or contracted for in respect of the " Clara " during her voyage. The Defendants, James Audus and George Skirrow Beecroft, the owners of the " Eliza " at the time of the collision, on behalf of themselves and of the master and the rest of the crew of the "Eliza," on the 30th of September last, commenced an action in the High Court of Admiralty in England against the Plaintiff in a cause civil and 1K.&J.264. HILL, V. AUDUS 457 maritime, founded on the alleged improper navigation of the [264] " Clara," for the purpose of recovering the value of the vessel "Eliza," and of the said clothes and private effects of her master and crew. The " Clara " was, on the 9th day of October last, seized under a warrant from the High Court of Admiralty in that action. Bail was thereupon given by the Plaintiff, and the vessel was released from arrest, the bail bond being still in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caspian Basin Specialised Emergency Salvage Administration and Another v Bouygues Offshore SA and Others ; Ultisol Transport Contractors Ltd v Bouygues Offshore SA and Others
...LtdWLR [1983] 1 WLR 1186. Gosse Millerd Ltd v Canadian Government Merchant Marine LtdELR [1929] AC 223. Hill v AudusENR (1855) 1 K & J 263; 69 ER 456. James v London and South Western Railway CoELR (1872) LR 7 Ex 287. Kapitan Shvetsov, The (unreported, 21 February 1997, Hong Kong CA). Mille......
-
Ultisol Transport Contractors Ltd v Bouygues Offshore SA ('The Bos 400')
...... Hadmor Productions Ltd v HamiltonELR [1983] 1 AC 191 . Hill v AudusENR (1855) 1 K & J 263 . James v London and South Western Railway CoELR (1872) LR 7 Ex 187 . ......
-
James v The London and South-Western Railway Company
...South-Western Railway Company Lloyd v. Guibert 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 283 13 L. T. Rep. N. S. 602 L. Rep. 1. Q. B. 119 Hill v. AudusENR 1 K. & J. 263 The Northumbria 3 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 316 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 681 L. Rep. 3 Ad. & Ecc. 24 The NeptuneENR 3 Knapp, 97 Burton v. Snee 1 Ves. 154......
-
Glaholm v Barker
...Mr, Druce, for the Plaintiffs. [308] Mr. Osborne and Mr. Haddan, for the Defendants. Nixmv. Roberts (I John. & Hem. 739); Hill v. Audus (1 Kay & J. 263); Straker v. Hartland (34 Law J. (Ch.) 122); Be Fusilier (12 W. E. 968, and 13 W. E. 592). Mr. Hobhouse, in reply. The arguments are fully ......