Parker v Winlow
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 June 1857 |
| Date | 10 June 1857 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 119 E.R. 1497
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 27 L. J. Q. B. 49; 4 Jur. N. S. 84. See Williamson v. Barton, 1862, 7 H. & N. 906; Concordia Chemische Fabrik auf Actien v. Squire, 1876, 34 L. T. 826; Dahl v. Nelson, 1881, 6 App. Cas. 51; Horsley v. Price, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 247; Allen v. Coltart, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 786; Leonis Steamship Company v. Rank, [1908] 1 K. B. 514.
[942] parker against winlow. Wednesday, June 10th, 1857. A memorandum of charter party was expressed to be made " between P., of the good ship ' C.,' and W., agent for E. W. & Son," to whom the ship was to be addressed. It was signed by W. without any restriction. - Held, that W. was personally liable as charterer. - By the charter party the ship was to proceed " to Plymouth, not higher than T. or N., or as near thereunto as she can safely get, and deliver " her cargo, with certain lay days and demurrage days. The port of Plymouth is a tidal estuary. On the ship's arrival in Plymouth the consignees ordered her to discharge at B., an ordinary landing place in the port of Plymouth, lower than T. or N. At this time the tides were neap : the vessel went as near to B. as she could in that state of the tide, and lay oti the sand for some days, till, the tides being higher, she got to B. Iti au action for demurrage : - Held, that the consignee had the option of naming any ordinary loading place in the port of Plymouth within the limits assigned, and that the lay days did not commence till the vessel reached the place so named. The delay in getting to it being occasioned only in the ordinary course of navigation in a tidal harbour. [S. C. 27 L. J. Q. B. 49 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 84. See Williamsm'v. Barton, 1862, 7 H. & N. 906 ; Canmdia Chemische Fabrik auf Adien v. Squire, 1876, 34 L. T. 826 ; Dahl v. Nelson, 1881, 6 App. Gas. 51 ; Horsley v. Price, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 247 ; Mien v. Coltart, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 786 ; Lemis Steamship Company v. Hank, [1908] 1 K. B. 514.] Action for demurrage of a ship. Plea : Never indebted. Issue thereon. On the trial, before Martin B., at the Newcastle Spring Assizes 1857, it appeared that a memorandum for charter was made and signed by the plaintiff and defendant. It was an ordinary printed form filled up. The material parts are stated below. It bore date at Newcastle, and commenced : " It is this day mutually agreed between Captain W. Parker, of the good ship ' Celerity,' himself master, now lying in the Tyne, and G. W. Winlow, agent for E, Winlow & Son, of Devonport, merchants, that the said ship " should load from the freighters a cargo of coals, " and, being so loaded, shall therewith proceed to Plymouth, not higher than Torpoint or New Passage, or so near thereunto as she may safely get, and deliver the same " on being paid freight. " A keel a day to be allowed for the said merchant (if the ship is not sooner despatched) for delivery. Demurrage over and above the said laying days at 31. per day." " The ship to be addressed to E. Winlow & Son, of Devoiiport. G. W. Winlow." G. W. Winlow, whose signature was attached, [943] was the defendant ; E. Winlow & Son in the memorandum mentioned were persons, distinct from G. W. Winlow, carrying on business at Devonport. The ship took...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Todd Trading Pte Ltd v Aglow Far East Trading Pte Ltd
...37.The disclosure of a principal, named or unnamed, does not release an agent from liability. In Parker v Winlow (1857) 7 E & B 942; 119 ER 1497 the defendant signed a charterparty as `GW Winlow, agent for E Winlow & Son` without qualification. In answer to a claim for demurrage, the defend......
-
Universal Steam Navigation Company v McKelvie & Company
...to that effect were given in ( Tanner v. Christian 1855, 4 E. & B. 591), ( Cooke v. Wilson 1856, 1 C.B., N.S., 153), ( Parker v. Winlow 1857, 7 E. & B. 942) and ( Paice v. Walker 1870, L.R. 5 Exch. 173). Whether all those decisions can stand with the later decisions of the Court of Appeal i......
- Compania Naviera Termar S.A. v Tradax Export S.A.
-
Bhoomatidevi d/o Kishinchand Chugani v Nantakumar s/o v Ramachandra
...Pte Ltd v Takashimaya Singapore Ltd [2017] 2 SLR 627 (refd) Paice v Walker (1870) LR 5 Ex 173 (refd) Parker v Winlow (1857) 7 E & B 942; 119 ER 1497 (refd) Rockline Ltd v Anil Thadani [2009] SGHC 209 (refd) Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 (refd) Simgood Pte Ltd v MLC Shipbuilding ......