Nutt and Others Assignees, Company of Edward Hague a Bankrupt, against Bourdieu
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 June 1786 |
| Date | 29 June 1786 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 99 E.R. 1119
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
[323] nutt and others Assignees, &c. of Edward Hague a Bankrupt, against bourdihu. Thursday, June 29th, 1786. Barratry can only be committed against the owner of the ship, and without his consent. This was an action on a policy of insurance, made by Hague before he became a bankrupt, on goods laden on board the ship " Rachette," (otherwise the " Bellona,") for a voyage from London to Rochelle, subscribed by the defendant on the 27th October 1769, for the sum of 1201. at 11. 10s. per cent, premium. The defendant pleaded the general issue. This cause came on to be tried at the sittings after last Easter term at Guildhall, before Buller, Justice, when the jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, damages 931. 6s. 8d. and costs 40s. subject to the opinion of the Court on the following case : That the defendant underwrote the policy stated in the declaration for the sum of 1201. at 11. 10s. per cent. That the bankrupt shipped on board the vessel in question goods to the amount of 18001. for Rochelle. That the captain by the instigation and direction of Messrs. Le Grands, the owners of the ship, went with the ship and cargo to Bourdeaux, instead of Rochelle, where the cargo was sold by the agents of Le Grands. That a petition was presented by the plaintiffs to the Lieutenant-General of the Admiralty of Guienne, stating, that, in October 1769, Joseph le Grand, one of the partners of a mercantile house at Rochelle being at London, with a ship named " La Rachette " or " Bellona," and in want of money to make up a cargo to return home, applied to the house of Messrs. Hague to supply them therewith. That they agreed to supply them with the cargo required ; and thereupon they loaded on board the said ship, for account of the said Messrs. Le Grands, 265 casks of train-oil, 4 casks of indigo, and 3 hales of merchandize. That as the said Messrs. Hague did not know the said house of Le Grands sufficiently to entrust them with merchandizes of such value, without a security, therefore on the 26th of October aforesaid, they entered into a contract with them the said Joseph le Grand and captain Rene Guin6 at London, whereby it was agreed, that the bills of lading for the said merchants should not be delivered to the said Messrs. Le Grands, but at Rochelle, the place [324] of the said ship's destination, and until they should have paid for the same to the bearer of the said Messrs. Hague's orders in bills of exchange at three and four usances, duly accepted by Messrs. Dufour Mallet and Co. bankers at Paris, or some other merchants of responsibility, and approved by Messrs. Hague, for the amount of the merchandizes, together with charges and premiums of insurance, and those of lading and other expenses to be incurred by the said Messrs. Hague, relative to the forwarding of the said merchandizes; and in default it was expressly agreed, that the said merchandizes were to be received for account of the said Messrs. Hague by the bearer of their orders free from freight, and all other charges of conveying them from London to Rochelle, and for which the said Guine captain of the said ship was only to have his recourse against the said Messrs. Le Grands. That the said captain Guine, in pursuance of the said contract, did on the 27th of the said October, deliver the bills of lading to Messrs. Hague, who on the same day forwarded the same to the order of Mr. Rodrique at Rochelle, together with the said contract by the post, desiring him to receive for their account the oils and indigo of which the cargo was composed, upon the arrival of the said ship, or to deliver the 1120 NUTT V. BOURDIEU 1 T. E. 325. whole to the house of the said Messrs. Le Grands, provided they fulfilled the clauses and conditions to which they had agreed, and not otherwise. That the said Joseph le Grand embarked with the said Captain Guine in the said ship, and arrived at Rochelle harbour, but, instead of entering the port, they oast...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Samuel (P.) & Company Ltd v Dumas
...it is of the essence of barratry that the shipowner is wronged, and he is not wronged when he consents. ( Stamma v. Brown, 2 Str. 1173; Nutt v. Bourdieu, 1 T.R. 323.) In such a case I think the cargo owners recover for a loss by perils of the seas, but on the Respondents' argument they ha......
-
Graham Joint Stock Shipping Company Ltd v Merchants' Marine Insurance Company Ltd
...2 Camp. 149 ; Hobbs v. Hannam, 3 Camp. 93 ; Magnus v. Buttemer, 11 C. B. 876 ; Soares v. Thornton, 7 Taunt. 627 ; Nutt v. Bourdicu, 1 T. R. 323; Blyth v. Shepherd, 9 M. & W. 763 ; Thompson v. Hopper, 0 12. & B. 172 ; Board of Management of Trim Joint District School v. Kelly, 111 L. T. Hep.......
-
Samuel (P.) & Company Ltd v Dumas
... ... , or shall appertain in part or in all” against adventures and perils of the seas and other ... McNair in reply cited Nutt v. Bourdieu. F27 ... Cur. adv. vult ... repaired within a specified time to engage others to repair them at the owner's expense ... interested in the policies, but only as assignees, in which case the admitted defence of scuttling ... ...
-
Atkinson and Hewitt v The Great Western Insurance Company [American Reports]
...39 Me. 253 Connecticut Ins. Co. v. The New York and New Haven R. R. Co. 25 Conn. 265 Lockyer v. OffleyENR 1 T. R. 269 Nutt v. BourdienENR 1 T. R. 323 Havelock v. HancillENR 3 T. R. 277 Ross v. HunterENR 4 T. R. 35 Lennox v. United States Insurance Company 3 Johns. Ch. 178 Taunton Copper Com......