Lyall v Hicks
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 December 1859 |
| Date | 02 December 1859 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 54 E.R. 244
ROLLS COURT
[616] lyall v. hicks. Nov. 25, 26, Dec. 2, 1859. A shipowner, in his written instructions to the captain, directed him, in case of emergency, to apply to certain firms abroad, " who would give him any assistance required." Held, that this did not authorize the captain to do anything not included in his general power and authority as captain. To authorize a captain to hypothecate the ship or freight for repairs, the necessity for such hypothecation must exist; if, therefore, the agent of the shipowner in a foreign port has sufficient funds in his hands for the repairs, the captain cannot hypothecate. The Defendant Mr. Hicks, the owner of a ship called "Carnatic," of which Suckling was the master, had despatched it to the East Indies. When Suckling sailed from England, Mr. Hicks gave him written instructions as to the voyage, which contained these words:-" In case of emergency, you will apply to any of the undermentioned firms, who will give, ymi any assistance required." The Plaintiffs, Messrs. Lyall, were one of the firms under mentioned. The ship arrived at Calcutta in the month of July 1857 ; and the Plaintiffs Messrs. Lyall (the agents of Mr. Hicks at Calcutta) entered into a contract with the Coolie Emigration Company at Calcutta, by which Suckling was to take a cargo of Coolies to the Mauritius. For this purpose, under the Government regulations, great repairs and alterations became necessary to be made in the ship: and the expenses amounting to [617] 1958, 8s. lid. were paid by the Plaintiffs. At this time, the Plaintiffs had in their hands money, or its equivalent, viz., a bill belonging to Hicks, amounting to 1895, which might have been applied towards the repairs and alterations of the ship. Instead of so doing, they, at the request of Suckling, gave him the bill to be otherwise disposed of. To repay the Plaintiffs the sum. of 1958, 8s. lid. advanced for the repairs, Suckling drew a bill on Mr. Hicks for that amount, dated the 19th of September 1857, and payable three months after sight. He gave this bill to the Plaintiffs who duly forwarded it for acceptance. It was subsequently accepted by Hicks, but was dishonored, as after stated. In November 1857, the cargo having been discharged at the Mauritius, the eaptain obtained from Messrs. Chawin, the correspondents of Mr. Hicks at that place, an 27BEAV.818. LYALL V. HICKS 245 advance of 2000 upon the security of the freight, in the shape of a bill of exchange for .2000, which bill Suckling remitted to Hicks. In October 1857 Hicks accepted the bill of exchange for 1958, 8s. lid., drawn on him by Suckling in favor of the Plaintiffs; but Hicks having, in November 1857, suspended his payments and executed a creditor's deed, this bill was dishonored. The other bill for 2000 was sent from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial