Priestly v Fernie and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 June 1863 |
| Date | 23 June 1863 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 159 E.R. 820
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 34 L. J. Ex 172; 11 Jur (N. S) 813; 13 W. R 1089, 13 L T. 208 Distinguished, Curtis v. Williamson, 1874, L R. 10 Q B 60 Referred to, Kendall v. Hamilton, 1879, 4 A C 504. Applied, Sullivan v. Sullivan, [1912] 2 Ir R 116
[977] trinity vacation, 29 vict PRIESTLY v fernie and another. June 23, 1863-Where the master of a ship *7 C,~-^. signs a bill of lading in his own name, and is sued upon it, and judgment is obtained against him, an action will not he against the owner of the ship upon the same bill of lading, although satisfaction has not been obtained on the judgment against the master. [S. C. 34 L. J. Ex 172; 11 Jur (N. S) 813; 13 W. R 1089, 13 L T. 208 Distinguished, Cuitis v Williamson, 1874, L R. 10 Q B 60 Referred to, Kendall v. Hamilton, 1879, 4 A C 504. Applied, Sullivan v. Sullwan, [1912] 2 Ir R 116 ] Declaration by the plaintiff' as secretary of the Melbourne Gas Company. For that Daniel Kavanagh, master of the vessel called "The Queen of Commerce," for a voyage of the said vessel from the port of Liverpool to Hohsori's Bay, Port Philip, signtd the following bill of lading:- "Shipped in good order and condition, except chips and sand-cracks, by Edmund Thompson &c., agent for Harper and Moore, in or upon the good ship or vessel called 'The Queen of Commerce,' whereof Kavanagh is master for this present voyage, and now lying in the port of Liverpool and bound to Hobson's Bay, Port Fhillrp, 264 retorts, being marked and numbered and enumerated as per margin, and are to be delivered in the like order and condition, except chips and sand-cracks, or breakage arising from any cause save improper stowage, and, subject to the undermentioned clauses, from 3H&CWS. PRIESTLY V. FERN IE 821 the ship's tackle at Hobson's Bay or railway pier (all and every the dangers and accidents of the seas, tire and navigation of whatsoever natuie or kind excepted), unto the Melbourne Gas Company, or their assigns, freight for the said goods being payable in Melbourne as per margin, with primage and average accustomed In witness whereof the master of the said ship or vessel hatb affirmed to three bills of lading, all of this tenor and date, one of which bills being accomplished the rest to stand void. (Then followed other provisions, not material to the present question ) [978] Averments : That the said Company, by their agents in that behalf, shipped and delivered such goods as are specified in the said bill of lading to the defendants, and they accepted and received of and from the said Company the same on boaid the said vessel in such order and condition as are mentioned in the said bill of lading, to be by the defendants conveyed in the said vessel to such place and for such purpose, and subject to auch terms and conditions as are in the said bill stated and contained, and the said vessel completed the said voyage, and eveiything has been done and happened and all times elapsed requisite to enable the said Company to have all the said terms observed and performed, and the said goods delivered to the s;ud Company at the place in the said bill of lading specified in that behalf, at id in the otder and condition contracted for, and to entitle the plaintiff suing as afoiesaid to recover in this action in respect of the matters in this count stated. Breach That the defendants, although not prevented by the said excepted dangers, accidents, causes, matters or things, or any of them, failed to deliver the said goods to the said Company in the older and condition contracted for, &c. Plea. That the plaintiff as such secretary as in the declaration alleged, and un behalf of the said Company, heretofore, in the Supreme Couit of Melbourne, in the colony of Victoria, then having jurisdiction in that behalf, impleaded the said Daniel Kavanagh in the declaration...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Gibson Trading Co; Hagemeyer Trading Company (M) Sdn Bhd
-
Sullivan v Sullivan
...Held, by the Court of Appeal, that the judgment obtained against the wife was a bar to any claim against the husband. Priestly v. Fernie (3 H. & C. 977) followed, and applied to the case of a debt incurred by a wife as agent for her husband. Motion on behalf of Messrs. O'Keeffe and Lynch, s......
-
Barrington v Lee
...of appeal in the tenth ground of appeal, does distinguish this case from Burt's case contrary to the Judge's views. 75 The case of Priestley v. Fernie (1863) 3 H. & C. 977, is clear authority for the proposition laid down in Bowstead on Agency, 13th Edition, Art. 93(3) page 290, which Lord ......
-
Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corporation v Stepanovs
...Ll Rep 384. Powell Duffryn plc v PetereitECAS (Case C-214/89) [1992] ECR I-1745; [1992] ILPr 300. Priestly v FernieENR (1863) 3 H & C 977; 159 ER 820. Provimi Ltd v Aventis Animal Nutrition SA [2003] EWHC 961 (Comm); [2003] ECC 29. Shogun Finance Ltd v HudsonELR [2004] 1 AC 919. Snook v Lon......