Morris and Another against Robinson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1824 |
| Date | 01 January 1824 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 107 E.R. 706
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 5 D. & R. 34; see Brinsmead v. Harrison, 1871-72, L. E. 6 C. P. 590; L. R. 7 C. P. 547. Applied, Rice v. Reed, [1900] 1 Q. B. 63.
[196] mokris and another, against eobinson. 1824. The master of a ship, which was injured by the perils of the sea, put into the Mauritius, and there abandoned the ship and cargo, which were afterwards sold under an order of the (a) See Winter and Others v. Kretchman, 2 T. E. 45. 3E.&C.197. MORRIS V.ROBINSON 707 Vice-Admiralty Court there, and the proceeds paid into that Court. The cargo was not damaged or perishable, nor was there any pressing necessity for the sale of it. The owners of the cargo brought an action on the case against the owners of the ship for wrongfully selling the cargo instead of carrying it to London, according to their contract, with a count in trover, and recovered a general verdict for the value of the ship and freight, which was one-fifth of the value of the cargo. They also sent out a power of attorney to an agent at the Mauritius to procure from the Vice-Admiralty Court there the proceeds of the sale which had been paid in. The agent demanded them, but they had been previously remitted to the High Court of Admiralty in this country. In an action for money had and received by the owners against the purchaser of the goods: Held, first, that the captain had not any authority to sell the cargo, although acting bona fide and under the order of the Vice-Admiralty Court; secondly, that the recovery against the owners of the ship was no answer to the present action ; thirdly, that the proceeds of the sale at the Mauritius not having been paid when demanded, the plaintiffs were in the same situation as if no such demand had been paid, and therefore entitled to recover the value of the goods from the defendant. [S. C. 5 D. & E. 34; see Brinsmead v. Harrison, 1871-72, L. E. 6 C. P. 590; L. E. 7 C. P. 547. Applied, Bice v. Eeed, [1900] 1 Q. B. 63.] Assumpsit for money had and received. Plea, the general issue. At the trial before Abbott C.J., at the adjourned London sittings after last Trinity term, a verdict was found for the plaintiffs for 70001., subject to the opinion of the Court upon the following case. The plaintiffs and the defendant were merchants residing in London. On or about the third day of December 1820, the house of Macintyre and Co., of Calcutta, merchants, shipped on board the ship "Lady Banks," whereof Isaac Valance was the master, 140 chests of indigo, the property, and an account and risk of the plaintiffs, under three several bills of lading signed by the captain, of which the following are the particulars: one bill of lading for 72 chests, ditto 45, ditto 23, total 140. By which bills of lading, the indigo was to be delivered in the port of London to the plaintiffs or their order. The "Lady Banks" sailed from Calcutta the 21st of December 1820, with the 140 chests of indigo on board, and a cargo of various other merchandise bound for the port of London, and afterwards put into Trin-[197]-comalee for repairs. She sailed from Trincomalee on the 17th of February 1821, for London, and met with tempestuous weather, which occasioned her to become very leaky ; during the bad weather about 600 bags of sugar were necessarily thrown overboard, and with much difficulty the ship was conducted to the island of the Mauritius, where she arrived on the 24th of March 1821, and assistance being procured, she was run upon a sand bank, with a view to the preservation of the ship and cargo, and it was necessary that the ship should be wholly unladen, and that she should be hove down in order to examine and repair the damages which had been sustained. The captain employed a proctor, and on the 24th of March petitioned the Vice Admiralty Court 'of that island, and under an order made by that Court, the cargo was landed and deposited in warehouses. An accidental fire having happened at the warehouse where part of the cargo had been deposited, great part thereof was burnt or materially damaged, and it was sold by auction, and twenty-one chests of indigo were (by the proceedings of the Admiralty Court afterwards referred to) reported to be damaged, -and were also sold by public auction, but these formed no part of the demand in the present action. After the sale there only remained of the whole cargo, 119 chests of the indigo comprised in the bills of lading before mentioned, and two sample chests of indigo, thirty casks of tallow, some buffaloes' horns, and a few...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Australia Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd
...then it bars all other personal suits from the same cause of action. The Court of Appeal also were of opinion that ( Morris v. Robinson 1824, 3 B & C. 196) threw no light on the problem before them. For reasons which I will state hereafter, it appears to me to be, perhaps, of all the decisi......
-
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls
...per Gleeson CJ and Callinan J, 658–659 [56]–[57] per Gummow and Hayne JJ; [2001] HCA 66; Morris v Robinson (1824) 3 B & C 196 at 205–206 [ 107 ER 706 at 710]; Tang Man Sit v Capacious Investments Ltd [1996] AC 514 at 521–522, 526. 71 Albion Insurance Co Ltd v Government Insurance Office (NS......
-
Baxter v Obacelo Pty Ltd
...to the treatment by Viscount Simon LC in United Australia Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd47 of the decision of the Court of King's Bench in Morris v Robinson48. The Lord Chancellor said of that case 49: ‘There, cargo belonging to the plaintiffs had been improperly sold during the course of a voyage......
-
Newcrest Mining Ltd v Thornton
...vol 304, cc117–126. 159 Western Australia, Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 25 September 1947 at 949–951. 160Morris v Robinson (1824) 3 B & C 196 [ 107 ER 706]; Baxter v Obacelo Pty Ltd (2001) 205 CLR 635 at 659 [57] per Gummow and Hayne 161 (2001) 205 CLR 635 at 657–......