Mors-Le-Blanch v Wilson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 February 1873 |
| Date | 08 February 1873 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
Court of Common Pleas
Keating J., Grove, J., Brett, J.
Mors-Le-Blanch v. Wilson
Crease v. Barrett 1 C. M. & P. 919
Erichsen v. BarkworthENRUNK 3 H. & N. 894 29 L. J. 96, Ex.
Meyerstein v. Barber L. Rep. 2 C. P. 38
Refusal of consignee at foreign port to accept cargo Demurrage Power of master to land cargo and yet keep a lien upon it
MARITIME LAW CASES. 605 C. P.] Mors-Le-Blanch v. Wilson. [C. P. court or common pleas. Reported by H. F. Pooley and John Rose, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. Saturday, Feb 8, 1873. Mors-Le-Blanch v. Wilson. Refusal of consignee at foreign port to accept cargo - Demurrage - Power of master to land cargo and yet Keep a lien upon it - Misdirection. When the consignee of a cargo refuses to receive it, the master of the vessel may, at common law, land and yet preserve his lien upon it for the freight, provided that he retain dominion over the goods. Semble, that if he deposit the cargo in the warehouse of an independent warehouseman, his lien for the freight is gone. The plaintiffs had shipped far, and consigned to, the defendants at Buenos Ayres, a small quantity of coal. The bill of lading stated that the " coal was to be taken from the ship as soon as the master was able to deliver, or was to be landed at the ex-pease and risk of the consignees." When the ship reached Buenos Ayres, the consignees refused to take the coal. The master Keept the vessel wailing 28 days, and then discharged it to the order of the consignees of the ship, who afterwards sold it to pay freight. The plaintiff having sued the defendants for demurrage and oilier expenses, caused by the detention of the ship, the jury were told by Brett, J., in answer to a question from their foreman, that the master "could not land the coal and keep his lien." Held, that this direction was insufficient, as the cargo might under certain circumstances be landed without loss of the lien. (a) (a) The question of a master's lien for freight and other expenses is one of extreme importance, and in this country, at least, is in a very extraordinary condition. Of the existence of such a lien there is no manner of doubt; bat hitherto it has always depended upon the goods remaining in the master's possession or under his control. If ho once parted with the goods, he lost all claim against them for his freight, although he, or his owner, still had their personal action against the shipper or consignee. The master's rights over the goods, however, went no farther than this, according to the law of this country. He could not proceed in rem in the Admiralty Court against them for his freight, although that court, being the only court which has such a process, would seem the natural court to have jurisdiction to enforce a lien of this description. In the United States, on the other hand, the master's lien may be enforced in the Admiralty Court: (See Parsons on Shipping, vol. 1, p. 173) note, and the cases there cited.) At the same time it has been held in that country that if the master delivers up the goods to the consignee unconditionally, the master loses his lien, and cannot enforce it in the Admiralty Court: (Bags of Linseed, 1 Black's U. S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 108.) Recently, however, this power of en-forcing a lien of freight, &c , by Admiralty process ha3 been conferred upon (shipowners to a limited extent in this country. By the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Acts Amendment Act 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 57), soot. 2, certain County Courts have jurisdiction over claims arising out of all agreements relating to the carriage of goods in any ship; and in Cargo ex Argos (decided by the Privy Council on appeal, which will be reported in the next volume of these reports) a master's Hen for freight; &c., was enforced in a County Court by a proceeding in rem against the goods carried. It is noticeable that in that case the master did not part with the control of the goods, having warehoused thorn in the port of London, until the suit had been instituted and bail given. If he had parted with them to the owner of the goods it is, to say she least, doubtful if he could have enforced his lien by the Admiralty pro- This was an action for not accepting a certain quantity of coal, bought by the plaintiffs for the defendants, and shipped for the defendants by the plaintiffs in two vessels which the plaintiffs had chartered. The plaintiffs were merchants carrying on business in Liverpool and London, the defendants were merchants carrying on business at Liverpool and Buenos Ayres. The first count of the declaration stated that, in consideration that the plaintiffs, at the request of the defendants, would receive in the Thames, in a ship called the Pitho, a large quantity, to wit, 47 1/3 tons of coal, and would carry the same from thence to Buenos Ayres, and there deliver the some to the defendants or their assigns, on certain terms, the defendants agreed with the plaintiffs, that the said coal should be taken by the defendants or their assigns as soon as the master of the ship was ready to deliver; and averred that the coal was received on board the ship in the Thames by the plaintiff, and was carried thence to the port of Buenos Ayres, and that the plaintiffs and the master were ready and willing to deliver the coal to the defendants upon the said terms, and that although all conditions (except such as the plaintiffs...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White & Company v Furness, Withy & Company
...Barber 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 569 2 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 420 L. Rep. 2 C. P. 38 Mors-le-Blanch v. WilsonDID=ASPM 28 L. T. Rep. N. S. 415 1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 605 L. Rep. 8 C. P. 227 Wright v. New Zealand Shipping CompanyDID=ASPM 40 L. T. Rep. N. S. 413 4 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 118 4 Ex. Div. 165 Po......