Morroson v Parsons
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 June 1810 |
| Date | 02 June 1810 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 127 E.R. 1136
Common Pleas Division
1 1 36 MORRISON V. PARSON'S 2 TAUNT. 407. and if the Plaintiff in this case could have proved an usage for ships to load at J3ridport, upon a policy at and from Lyme, it might have assisted him, but no such usage was proved here, Probably the underwriters never underwrote a voyage from BridRort in these terms before. The whole is obviously a mistake, and proceeded from the circumstance, that the parties knew that the "Swift," the first vessel which was covered by this policy, was to sail from Lyme, they therefore concluded that the ship and ships would sail from the same place. It was in evidence, that Guernsey is within the port of Southampton, and Liverpool within (407] the port of Chester, and that the port of Exeter extends near thirty miles to the eastward of that city. Rule absolute. Lens and Marshall, Serjts were to have supported the rule. MORRISON V. PARSONS. June 2, 1810. If the owner of a ship, having chartered her for a voyage, assigns her before the voyage, though he afterwards assign the charter-party to another, if she earns freight, the assignee of the ship is entitled to the freight, as incident to the ship.But he cannot sue on the charter-party otherwise than in the name of the assignor* This was an action of assumpait, brought to recover 5351. 28 claimed to be due to the Plaintiff for the freight of a cargo of goods carried from Stockholm to Plymouth, under an agreement of charter-party made on the 17th of August 1808, whereby the Plaintiff being owner of the ship "Brothers," contracted with the Defendant that she should sail to Stockholm, and there load from the Defendant's factors a cargo of tar for Plymouth, and there deliver the same, on freight, at the rate of 13s per barrel, one half of the freight to be paid on the delivery of the cargo, and the remainder in three months following. Upon the 26th of August the Plaintiff executed a regular assignment of the ship to Henry, the master of her, but no reference was therein made to the charter-party, or the freight to arise therefrom , the vessel was duly registered in the name of Henry, under whose command she sailed, in pursuance of the charter-party, about the 8th of September 1808, upon her voyage to Stockholm. The Plaintiff being indebted to Hamilton in 8601 on the 1st of February 1809, by indenture of that date made between himself and Hamilton, reciting therein the charter party, and his debt, and that be had proposed to assign the freight for security, and had requested Hamilton, if it should be considered by him as necessary or expo-RON-client to effect an insurance thereon, in consideration of the debt so due, and of 5s., the Plaintiff assigned to Hamilton ail his right, title, interest, claim, and demand in the monies to become due by virtue of the thereinhefore-recited charter-party, to hold, take, and enjoy the same unto Hamilton, his executors, administrators, and assigns, upon trust thereout to defray the costs of that assignment, and of the execution or man ement of the trusts in him thereby reposed, and to pay to himself any pritmiuma or commission, and all other charges of effecting any insurance upon the freight, and after such payments, then upon trust to apply the balance in payment of the debt and interest up to the day of payment, and if there should be any surplus, in trust to s y the same over to the Plaintiff* The Plaintiff then proceeded to constitute Hamilton his attorney irrevocable, to sue for and receive the freight, and give discharges, and effect insurances. He also covenanted for title to the ship and charter-party, and for further assurance, and that he would not revoke the authorities thereby given, or release. On the 2d of June, the "Brothers" being then expected home from Stockholm, Hamilton, by a notice, wherein he recited the assign matt which had been made of the freight, required the Defendant not to pay it to any person except himself. The vessel having arrived at Stockholm, took in a complete cargo of tart and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bristow v Whitmore
...(3 B. & C. 647); Higgins v. Senior (8 M. & W. 834); Beckham \. Drake (9 M. & W. 79); Case v. Damson (5 M. & S. 79); Morrison v. Parsons (2 Taunt. 407); Lindsay v. Gibbs (22 Beav. 522); Rooke v. Kensington (2 K. & J. 753); Lister v. Payn (11 Si'm. 348); Gladstone v. Birley (2 Mer. 401). Mr. ......
-
Benson v Chapman
...When M'Carthy v. Abel was decided, the courts had not come to a clear view of the rights of assured and assurers. In Morrison v. Parsons (2 Taunt. 407) it is laid down that the owner of the ship at the time that the freight is earned, is entitled to it. [Maule J. Suppose that there had been......
-
Lindsay v Gibbs
...contract which had been entered into with the charterer, and subject to the equities which had previously arisen.; Morrison v. Parsons (2 Taunt. 407). Gibbs & Co., the consignees of the cargo, having received it in pursuance of the usual bills of [0201 lading, have, at law, made themselves ......
-
Keith v Burrows
...it as such. What, all believed the ship to be earning must belong to the mortgagee:' Case v. Davison, 5 M. & S. 79; Morrison v. Parsons, 2 Taunt. 407; Camden v. Anderson, 5 T. Eep. 70S). [Lord Penzance. Those are all cases of contract.] We say there was a. new contract in this case. The que......