Hussey against Christie and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 May 1808 |
| Date | 17 May 1808 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 103 E.R. 636
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Considered, Bristow v. Whitmore, 1861, 9 H. L. C. 401.
hussey against christie and others. Tuesday, May Nth, 1808. The master of a ship has no lien on it for money expended or debts incurred by him for repairs done to it on the voyage. [Considered, Bristow v. Whitmwe, 1861, 9 H. L. C. 401.] The Lord Chancellor sent the following case for the opinion of this Court. On the 28th of July 1804 John Hill, the owner of the ship "Britannia," engaged by a written contract the plaintiff Hussey as master of her, on a voyage to the South Sea fishery. [The case set forth the contract, but no-[427]-thing turned upon the particular provisions of it. Amongst other things it stated that Hill agreed to allow to Hussey for his own services and also for providing officers and crew for the voyage one-third of the neat proceeds of-the adventure : and that Hussey should discharge all the lawful demands which the said officers and men might have on the ship and cargo.] The ship being 'equipped and provided for the voyage, the .plaintiff took the command as master, and sailed from England in September 1804 upon the voyage agreed upon, and prosecuted the same with all due diligence; and, having procured a considerable cargo arrived with the ship at Port Jackson in South Wales in June 1806; but in consequence of her having met with very severe weather and sustained much damage it became impossible to prosecute the voyage further, without considei;-able repairs at Port Jackson. The plaintiff accordingly caused the necessary repairs to be done, and the articles of tackling and furniture wanting to be supplied, and expended a large sum of money for those purposes. But not being able to advance all the money necessary to complete the repairs, he drew several bills of exchange upon Hill the owner, for the purpose of raising money to supply the deficiency. Having completed the repairs necessary for bringing the ship and cargo home, the plaintiff set sail from Port Jackson for England; but in the course of the voyage it became necessary to make further repairs and to procure a new cable; for all which the plaintiff was obliged to draw other bills of exchange on the owner, and also to give his own promissory note. The plaintiff arrived with the ship and cargo in London on the 15th of April 1807i Daring his absence on the voyage Hill the owner became a bankrupt, and a commission was duly issued against [428] him, and some of the defendants were chosen his assignees. None of the bills of exchange mentioned have been paid by Hill or his assignees: and some of them have been taken up by the plaintiff, as the drawer, since his return with the ship. Nor has any part of the money expended by the plaintiff in the repairs of the ship and in providing the necessary tackling and furniture...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bristow v Whitmore
...for the Plaintiff, in support of the decree. The circumstances of this case are altogether different from those of Hussey v. Christie (9 East, 426X and the other cases in which the Master has been held to have no lien. And in Smith v. Plummer (1 B. & Aid. 575), which was relied upon below o......
-
Northcote v Owners of the Henrich Bjorn
...1, and Voet.) If there were alien for necessaries supplied on the high seas them would be no need for bottomry: (see Hussey v. Christie, 9 East, 426.) There is no case of a maritime lien for necessaries before 1840, and the argument of the appellants is baited on a misunderstanding of the p......
-
Stainbank and Another v Fenning
...independently of contract, constitute such an interest. The master of a ship has no lien upon the ship for repairs,-Hussey v. Christie (9 East, 426); or for wages,- Smith v. Plwnmer (1 B. & Aid. 575) : and a third person advancing money for those purposes could be in no better position than......
-
William Hayes and George Johnson v John Reid and William Reid
...quite unsupported by the case; and the dicta in Hussey v. Christie (b), in Chancery, are overruled by the same case in the Queen's Bench: 9 East, 426. Here not only does the libel not state any instrument of hypothecation, but the existence of any such is negatived. ThereÂÂfore there being......