Johnston Brothers v Saxon Queen Steamship Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 February 1913 |
| Date | 13 February 1913 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
King's Bench Division
Rowlatt, J.
Johnston Brothers v. Saxon Queen Steamship Company
Ship Charter-party Safe port
MARITIME LAW CASES, 305 KB. DIV.] JOHNSTON BROTHERS v. SAXON QUEEN STEAMSHIP COMPANY. [KB. DIV. Thursday, Feb. 13,1913. (Before ROWJCATT, J.) JOHNSTON BBOTHBB9 V. BATON QUEEN SXHAU.SHIP COMPANY Skip-Charter-party-Sife port A charter-party provided that a ship should " trade between any ??fe port between Hamburg and Brest and the United Kingdom." The ship was ordered by the charters to go to Creater, a port in the United Kingdom which was perfectly safe to make provided the sea were smooth, but which might become dangerous if a change of wind altered the conditions. At the time the vessel was ordered to Oraster the sea was smooth. Held, that the part was not & safe port within the meaning of the charter-party. NOBTHUMBEBLAND ASSIZES. Action tried by Rowlatt, J. The plaintiffs claimed damages for breach of a charter-party contract. The foots and arguments are sufficiently stated in the judgment. Short, KG. and Meynell for the plaintiffs. scott Fox, KG. and Cuthbertson for the defendants. ROWLATT, J.-This is au action claiming damages which have been agreed, if it should become necessary to give them, at 1152. for bimch of a charter-party. The plaintiffs are the charcterers, and the ship, which was chartered to them by the defendants, was the Saxon Queen, which was a vessel of about 300 tons dead-weight capacity. And she was to be employed, according to the charter-ppi-ty, in such lawful trades between such safe ports between Hamburg and Brest and the United Kingdom as the charters should direct. The charter ordered her to Oraster to load stone, and the owners refused to go to Grater because they said it was not a safe port within the meaning of the charter-party. For that alleged breach of contract the action is brought It is not necessary for me to go through the correspondence to throw any light on the question of damage, because that has been agreed u.v 1151. Suffice it to Bay that the ship, when ordered to Oraster, after objecting to go there, did consent in fact to go outside the harbour, but when she got there declined to enter. Oraster in a small place on the coast of North-umberland where a sort of glen comes down to the sea, and where for a long time apparently there had been a little fishing cove. But recently two piers have been built there, and a stone quarry has been developed in the neighbourhood, and it has become a place...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Australian Wheat Board (Houston City)
-
Compania Naviera Maropan S/A v Bowaters Lloyd Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd (Stork.)
... ... : "The plaintiffs are the owners of the steamship stork' which is a vessel with a gross tonnage of ... shipping superintendent in the defendant company, is in charge of shipping operations in ... , that is the very point decided in Hall Brothers Steamship Company, Limited. v. R. & W. Paul, ... ...
-
Leeds Shipping Company Ltd v Societe Francaise Bunge (The Eastern City)
...period of the vessel's use of the port and may take account of dangers likely to be incurred on the voyage to the port. ( Johnston Brothers v. Saxon Queen Steamship Co. 1913, 108 L.T. 564). 18 The safety of the port should be viewed in respect of a vessel properly manned and equipped, and n......
- Axel Brostom & Son v Louis Dreyfus & Company
-
THE SAFE PORT PROMISE OF CHARTERERS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE ENGLISH COMMON LAW
...The Hermine, supra n 40. 82 The Mediolanum, supra n 29. 83 The Eastern City, supra n 38. 84 Ibid. 85 Johnston Bros v Saxon Queen SS Co (1913) 108 LT 564. 86 Johnston Bros v Saxon Queen SS Co, ibid; The Dagmar, supra n 62. 87 The Houston City, supra n 78. 88 Smith v Dart & Son, supra n 75; C......