Kearon v Pearson and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 November 1861 |
| Date | 02 November 1861 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 158 E.R. 523
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 31 L. J. Ex 1; 10 W. R. 12. Adopted, Ford v. Cotesworth, 1868, L. R. 4 Q. B. 135 affirmed 1870, L R. 5 Q. B. 544, Jackson v. Union Marine Insurance Company, 1873, L. R. 8 C. P. 587: affirmed 1874, L. R. 10 C. P. 125, Grant v. Coverdale, 1884, 9 A. C. 475, 5 Asp. M. C. 353. Explained, Ashcroft v. Crow Orchard Colliery Company, 1873, L R 9 Q B 543, 2 Asp. M. C. 397 Distinguished, Postlethwaite v. Freeland, 1880, 5 A. C. 619, 4 Asp M. C. 302; Nicholl v Ashton, [1901] 2 K B 126. Not applied, Kay v. Field, 1882, 8 Q. B D. 599. Referred to, Jones v. Green, [1904] 3 K. B. 280.
[386] keaeon v. pearson and another. Nov. 2, 1861.-The defendants, by charter-party, engaged to load on board the plaintiff's ship a cargo of coals "To be loaded with usual dispatch." The defendants commenced loading by bringing the coal in boats along a canal to the dock where the plaintiff's ship was, but before the cargo was completed a severe fiost rendered the canal unnavigable, and the ship was detained thirty-four days. Held, that the expie&sion "usual dispateh" meant " usual dispatch of persons who have a cargo icady for loading," and that the defendants were responsible for the delay. [S. C. 31 L. J. Ex 1; 10 W. R. 12. Adopted, Ford v. Cotetworth, 1868, L. R. 4 Q. B. 135 . affirmed 1870, L R. 5 Q. B. 544, Jackson v. Union Manne I'/tsuiawe Uwnpany, 1873, L. E. 8 C. P. 5b7: athrmed 1874, L. E. 10 C. P. 135, Grant v. Cwerdale, 1884, 9 A. C. 475, 5 Asp. M. C. 353. Explained, Asliciuft v. Ctaw Orchatd Collieiy Company, 187J, L R 9 Q B 543, 2 Asp. M. C. 397 Distinguished, Pobtlettuwatte v. Freetand, 1880, 5 A. C. 619, 4 Asp M. C. 302; Nitkoll v A&hton, [1901] 2KB 126. Not applied, Kay v. Field, 1882, 8 Q. B D. 599. Referred to, ./o/tei v. Green, [1904] 3 K. B. 280.] The declaration stated that the plaintiff, as owner of the ship "Active," agreed with the defendants, by chai ter-party, as follows :- "Liveipool, Dec. 17, i860. "I hereby engage with Messrs Peat son and Kuowles, to receive and load on boaid Biy vessel, the 'Active,' of Dublin, being tight, strong, &c , a full and complete cargo of coals, about 110 tons, and proceed to Dublin, 01 s o near as she can safely get, and deliver same per bills of lading on being paid freight at the late of 6s. 6cl. per ton of 20 cwt., and 21s gratuity, and allow 20 tons pet wen king day foi discharging, or if longer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hick v Rodocanachi
...They referred also to Bather v. Hodgson, 3 M. & S. 267; Adams v. Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, 5 C.B.N. S. 482; Kearon r. Pearson, 7H. & N. 386; Badgers v. Forrester, 2 Camp. 483; Burmester v. Hodgson, 2 Camp. 483; Hill v. Idle, 4 Camp. 327; Blightv. Page, 3 Bos. & Pull. 295, note; Tille......
-
Jones v Green & Company
...Cas. 162 (1896) A. C. 108 Grant v. CoverdaleDID=ASPMELR 51 L. T. Rep. 472 5 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 353 9 App. Cas. 470 Kearon v. PearsonENR 7 H. & N. 386 Harris v. DreesmanUNK 23 L. J. 210, Ex. Barque Quilpu Limited v. Brown ante, p. 596 Lilly v. StevensonENR 22 Sess. Cas. 278 Gardiner v. Macfa......
-
Kay v Field
...1 H. & C. 396 Tapscott v. BalfourDID=ASPM 1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 501 27 L. T. Rep. N. S. 710 L. Rep. 8 C. P. 46 Kearon v. PearsonENR 7 H. & N. 386 Shipping Charter-party Exceptions 526 MARITIME LAW CASES. Q.B. Div.] Kay v. Field and Co. [Q.B. Div. March 20 and 22.1882. (Before Pollock, B.) Ka......
-
Ashcroft v Crow Orchard Colliery Company
...Bench Division Lush, J. Ashcroft v. Crow Orchard Colliery Company Kearon v. PearsonENR 7 H. & N 386 Tapscott v. Balfour ante, vol. 1, p. 501 27 L. T. Rep. N.S. 719 L. Rep. 8 C. P. 46 Charter-party Demurrage Dock regulations Tapscott v. Balfour (ante, vol. 1, p. 501) distinguished. MARITIME ......