Orr v Dickinson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1858 |
| Date | 01 January 1858 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 70 E.R. 315
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 28 L. J. Ch. 516; 5 Jur. (N. S.) 672. See Michael v. Fripp, 1868, L. R. 7 Eq. 99.
Merchant Shipping Act, 1854. 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. 18 & 19 Vict. c. 91, s. 10 Certificate of Sale. Invalid Bill of Sale. Registry of. Equitable Interest in a Ship. Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, s. 65. Injunction.
Reports of CASES ADJUDGED in the HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY before Sir WILLIAM PAGE WOOD, Knt, Vice-chancellor. By HENRY ROBERT VAUGHAN JOHNSON, of Lincoln's Inn, Esqr., Barrister-at-Law. 1858, 1859, 1860- 21 & 22, 22 & 23, 23 & 24 Yict. 1860. [1] ore v. dickinson. March 13, June 22, 1858; Jan. 18, 20, 1859. [S. C. 28 L. J. Ch. 516; 5 Jur. (N. S.) 672. See Michael v. Fripp, 1868, L. K. 7 Eq. 99.] Merchant Shipping Act, 1854. 17 & 18 Fict. c. 104. 18 & 19 Fict. c. 91, s. 10. Certificate, of Sale. Invalid Bill of Sale. Registry of. Equitable Interest in a Ship. Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, s. 65. Injunction. Under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, the registry of a bill of sale, which, though purporting to be valid, so that the registrar has no alternative but to register it, is in fact invalid, gives no title, even at law, to the person thereby registered as sole owner of the ship. Therefore, where a bill of sale, though executed by the person named for that purpose by the Plaintiff, the then owner of the ship, and purporting in all other respects to be made in conformity with the certificate of sale, was, in fact, made for less than the minimum price specified in the certificate, and the ship was registered in the name of the purchaser as sole owner: Held, that the registry was void, and, the ship having been sold by arrangement pending the suit, that the Plaintiff was entitled to the net proceeds of the sale. Whether, under the Merchant Shipping Acts of 1854 and 1855, this Court has jurisdiction to interfere with a title acquired at law by the registration of a valid bill of sale of a ship-qumre. The 65th section of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, does not deprive this Court of its ordinary jurisdiction to protect property during litigation. In the month of August 1857, the Plaintiff, being the sole owner of the brig Polly Hopkins, and registered as such on the registry of ships at the custom house at Charlotte Town, Prince Edward Island, executed a certificate of sale, granted at that custom house, in the form provided by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Viet. c. 104, s. 79), by [2] which he authorised the Defendant, M'Calman, a partner in the firm of Messrs. Wilson, Brown & Co., of Liverpool, to sell the brig, and declared that the brig should not be sold for a less sum than 1300. (See 17 & 18 Viet. c. 104, s. 77.) Upon the receipt of the certificate of sale, and before the arrival of the brig at Liverpool, Wilson, Brown & Co., being in embarrassed circumstances, made a conditional sale of the brig to the Defendant, Dickinson, for 900, it being agreed that, if they repaid him the 900 by a given day, the ship was to be theirs, otherwise she 315 316 ORB V. DICKINSON JOHNS. 3. was to belong to the Defendant, Dickinson.(l) And on the 8th of September 1857 the Defendant, M'Calman, executed a printed form, purporting to be a bill of sale from the Plaintiff, by his attorney, M'Calman, to the Defendant, Dickinson, transferring to him the brig for 900. The registrar of the custom house at Liverpool having objected to register the bill of sale in consequence of the discrepancy between the amount of the purchase-money and the amount mentioned in the certificate of sale, the amount of the purchase-money (900) was struck out of the bill of sale and 1300 was written in its place. On the 2d of December 1857 the Plaintiff, who had come to England, being informed by Wilson, Brown & Co. that they had been in difficulties, and had " pledged," as they pretended, " the ship's papers," countermanded the authority he had given to M'Calman; and on the 18th of December he executed a revocation of the certificate of sale, in the form prescribed by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854. [3] The revocation, having been entered at the Liverpool custom house, was transmitted thence to the custom house at Charlotte Town, and, having been recorded there, was returned to the custom house of Liverpool, where it was received on the 25th of January 1858. On the 1st of February 1858 the Plaintiff filed his bill against the Defendants, Dickinson and M'Calman, charging that no bond fide sale of the vessel had ever taken place, and praying that the Defendants might be restrained from dealing with the vessel and detaining her documents, and from causing her to be registered, except for the benefit of the Plaintiff; and that the vessel and her documents might be delivered up to the Plaintiff. Shortly afterwards the Plaintiff obtained, upon an ex parte application, the usual interim injunction, restraining the Defendants from dealing with the ship, and from parting with her documents. March 13, 1858. On the 13th of March, upon motion on behalf of the Plaintiff to continue the injunction, it appeared that, on the 30th of January 1858, being the day before that on which the bill was filed, Dickinson had procured the bill of sale to be registered; and that his name was then on the register at Liverpool as sole owner of the brig. Upon this and other grounds the motion was opposed on behalf of that Defendant; but the Vice-Chancellor was of opinion that, upon the evidence then adduced, there was clearly a question to be tried, whether there had ever been any bond fide sale of the vessel; the Court therefore had power, under the 65th section of the Act (17 & 18 Viet. c. 104), to prevent the Defendant, Dickinson, from making a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Board of Management of Wilson's Hospital School v Enoch Burke
...community as an outworking of the Gospel imperative to reach out to all people in a spirit of engagement and invitation to “come and see” ( John 1:39). The ethos of a Church of Ireland school reflects the communal Scriptural values of the faith community, in a positive and encouraging stude......
-
Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd
...strike-out stage any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favour of the claimant. I turn to consider the heads of claim now pleaded by Mr Johnson. (1) Collector Piece Video Ltd and Adfocus Ltd. The claim is for sums which Mr Johnson, acting on GW's advice, invested in these companies and lo......
-
G B v Stoke City Football Club Ltd (First Defendant) Peter David Fox (Second Defendant)
...Washington's evidence during which time the statements of two BBC employees at the time, now freelance, namely Mr Gaskell (1, C202) and Mr Johnson (1, C204), respectively the sports editor and a sports reporter at BBC Stoke, were obtained on behalf of the second defendant. They were impress......
-
Tidal Energy Ltd v Bank of Scotland Plc
...CHAPS Transfer Form includes a box for naming the beneficiary, and mentions "the payee": but the explanation for that is in paragraph 15 of Johnson 1. It is an anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism measure. 49 The conclusion I draw from the evidence of how CHAPS works is that a receiv......
-
Balancing Act: Supreme Court Rules That Filing A Proof Of Claim For Stale Debt Does Not Violate The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
...to repayment after the expiration of the limitations period under applicable state law. The Court's decision in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson1 resolved a split among the federal courts of appeal about the application of the FDCPA to proofs of claim in bankruptcy proceedings. While the dec......
-
John Gilmartin, CEO of Klyant, On Building a Global Customer Base
...of technology. There’s probably things like that that maybe you want to invest in Ennis. You know as a tech guy. So what do you guys do? John: (1:17) So, we’re a complete web-based stat legal accounting application designed specifically for law firms. So, and that’s going to the end to make......
-
Waiver Of Torts As A New Cause Of Action
...published on www.internationallawoffice.com The Ontario Divisional Court heard an appeal of the decision in Serhan Estate v Johnson and Johnson1 to certify a product liability class action. The motions judge held that the material facts pleaded could sustain an action based on the equitable......
-
New Jersey Jury Unanimously Finds Johnson & Johnson Not Liable in Latest Talcum Powder-Based Mesothelioma Litigation
...in 2016 and filed suit against the defendants in 2017. At trial, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the evidence would show that Johnson & Johnson (1) rigged testing results, (2) cut corners in testing their talc products and (3) put profits in front of people. Plaintiff’s counsel also project......
-
Oasis or mirage: the Supreme Court's thirst for dictionaries in the Rehnquist and Roberts eras.
...dictionary invoked by Chief Justice Roberts, Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language, relied on historical order. See SAMUEL JOHNSON, 1 A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE vii (6th ed. 1785). Only two senses of "regulate" are listed: "[t]o adjust by rule or method" and "to dire......
-
Making Second Amendment Law With First Amendment Rules: the Five-tier Free Speech Framework and Public Forum Doctrine in Second Amendment Jurisprudence
...a major doctrinal shift in First Amendment jurisprudence. 232. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 582 (2008) (quoting Samuel Johnson, 1 Dictionary of the English Language 1095 (4th ed. 1773) 1978)). This dictionary is often used by the Court in defining terms in the Constitution'......
-
Scrutinizing 'strict scrutiny' judicial review for the right to bear arms.
...AMERICAN DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, "Arms" (1828). (112) Id. (113) Id. (114) Heller, 554 U.S. at 581 (2008) (citing SAMUEL JOHNSON, 1 DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 106 (4th ed.) (1773) and TIMOTHY CUNNINGHAM, A NEW AND COMPLETE LEGAL DICTIONARY (115) NOAH WEBSTER, AMERICAN DIC......
-
The unwelcome judicial obligation to respect politics in racial gerrymandering remedies.
...839 F. Supp. 1188,1201 (W.D. La. 1993), vacated, 114 S. Ct. 2731 (1994); Laughlin McDonald, Can Minority Voting Rights Survive Miller v. Johnson, 1 Mich. J. Race & L. 119, 146 (1996) (describing Georgia's plan). Incumbency protection was also employed extensively in all of these plans. ......
-
Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No.13) Act 1892
...Will of Samuel Simms, viz., Joseph Tetley, Sampson Slater. -- William Auty. 299 Workshop - 303 304 Shed - Outbuildings - - William Gledhill, John 1 Gledhill. ditto - -I- [Ch. ccii.] .Zoccd Govenzme& Boct~d's [S5 & 56 VICT.] Provisionnl Orders ConJirmution (No, 13) Act, 1892. A.D. lhG2. - --......
-
Midland Railway Act 1900
...protection of fcthe vestry of that parish A.D. 1900: (in this section called " the vestry ") the following provisions shall f s~7 apply: ? John (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained the Company HamPstead- shall not appropriate stop up or permanently interfere with the footway i......
-
Glasgow Corporation Sewage Order Confirmation Act 1935
...said sludge main. Forprotec- 71. The following provisions for the protection of ^on ^ Archibald John Campbell Colquhoun residing at Ballaig John1 a near C^eff the proprietor of the lands hereinafter in this Campbell section referred to and his successors and assignees Colquhoun. (in this se......
-
Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No.4) Act 1912
...P ? ? Alison James Allen SutclifEe j ? Alison Martha Elizabeth Shepherd Louisa Mar- 1. ? garet Grlendin- h ning Gertrude L * ^ ?" SutclifEe John 1 - Smith Tad- 4. ?" f 1 H r caster Brewery Company Limited. 1A [2 & 3 Geo. 5.] Local Government Board's [Oh. cxxx. Provisional Orders Confirmatio......