Johnson against Sheddon
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 July 1802 |
| Date | 07 July 1802 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 492
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Followed, Francis v. Boulton, 1895, 65 L. J. Q. B. 156.
johnson against sheddon. Wednesday, July 7tb, 1802. The rule by which to calculate a partial loss oil a policy on goods by reason of sea-damage is the difference between the respective gross proceeds of the same goods when sound and when damaged, and not the net proceeds: it being settled that the underwriter is not to bear any loss from fluctuation of market or port duties, or charges after the arrival of the goods at their port of destination. [Followed, Francis v. Boulton, 1895, 65 L. J. Q. B. 156.] This case was very fully argued in Easter term, 41 Geo. 3, by Garrow, Parke, and (a)1 Vi. 10 Co. 128 a. (a)2 Vide all the cases collected by Serjt. Williams in a note to the case of Thursby v. Plant, 1 Saund. 241 b. 2EAST,-682. JOHNSON V. SHEDDON 493 Lawes, against the rule for a new triaj, and by the Attorney General and Gibbs in support of it. It is unnecessary to detail the arguments, as the substance of them was so distinctly stated in the judgment of the Court, which was delayed till now in consequence of a difference of opinion on the Bench while Lord Kenyon presided in the Court. Lawrence J. (in the absence of Grose J.) now delivered the judgment of the Court: This is a motion for a new trial of an action brought against the defendant, an underwriter on goods on board a ship called the "Carolina," from Sicily to Hamburgh, to recover a partial loss sustained by- the plaintiff, by reason of the sea water having damaged a cargo of brimstone and shumack; and upon a calculation by Mr. Oliphant, to whom it was referred by the parties to ascertain the loss sustained, it has been settled after the rate of 761. 7s. 4d. per cent. And the ground on which the new trial has been moved for. is, that Mr. Oliphant has proceeded in his calculation upon a mistake, inasmuch as in estimating the loss he has taken for his foundation the difference between [582] the net produce of what the goods have produced, and what they would have produced if sound; instead of the difference between their respective gross produces. Upon the fullest consideration that we have been able to give this question, (which has been depending a great while, and which was argued before Eord Ellenborough came upon the Bench, and who, if the case were to be argued again, would give no opinion, having been concerned in the cause when at the Bar,) my...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King v Benjamin Pooley
...Court. And now LORD ALVANLEY Ch. J. saidùMy Brothers and myself are of opinion that the rule laid down in the late ease of Johnson Shedd" 2 East, 581, is the proper rule, and that the loss must in this, as in the case alluded to, be calculated upon the gross proceeds of the goods insured. ......
-
John Kean and Jane His Wife, Administratrix of William Craig, v James Strong and Others, Executors of John Maxwell
...v. Nash 1 Stra. 535. Wynne v. FellowesUNK 1 Show. 334. Jones v. BarkleyENR 2 Doug. 684. AnonENR Skin. 39. Stevenson v. LambardENR 2 East, 581. Barker v. DamerENRENR 3 Mod. 337; S. C. Carth. 182. Wey v. YallyENR 6 Mod. 194. Walker's caseUNK 3 Rep. 22, b. Patterson v. Scott 2 Stra. 776. Webb ......
-
Usher against Noble
...of the damaged goods bore to the price of the sound goods of the same kind when landed at the port of delivery. (of 2 Burr. 1214. (a)3 2 East, 581. (5)2 Park, 139, 6th edition. Mr. Park now observed that that was the case of an open policy. And see Tuife v. The Royal Exchange Assurance Comp......
-
Puller and Another against Halliday
...own gratification ; amounting in the whole to 30751. The plaintiffs (a) Vide Allwood v. Herikill, Park, 6th edit. 239. Johnson v. Sheddon, 2 East, 581. K. B. xxxiii.-7 194 PULLER V. HALLIDAY 12 EAST, 496. by their plea to that action claimed a deduction equal to the amount of the freight re......