"Prima Vera"-(Vodonick)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 August 1808 |
| Date | 12 August 1808 |
| Court | High Court of Admiralty |
English Reports Citation: 165 E.R. 1019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY
[23] " prima vera "-(Vodomck) * Aug. 12, 1808 -Registrar of Vice-Admiralty Court not responsible for money transmitted under proper precautions and in the usual course of business, for the purpose of being invested in the funds, and afterwards lost by the failure of the consignee In this case certain proceeds, which had been paid into the Registry of the Vice-Admiralty Court at Martinique, were remitted to the house o Turnbull, Forbes and Co by the deputy registrar, to be deposited in the Bank of England. Owing to some neglect that was not done, and the money was lost in consequence of the failure of that house while it remained in their hands , the question, therefore, was, whether either the registrar or his deputy should be held responsible for the loss Judgment-Sir W Scott This is a question upon which I have deliberated with a considerable degree of anxiety, not on account of any difficulty that appeared to attend the case itself, but from a conviction extremely painful, that in whatever way it might be decided a considerable hardship must fall upon persons in no other manner implicated in the loss of this property than as they are the victims of the imprudence or the misfortunes of others A part of the cargo of this ship had been * See 5 C. Rob. 151. 1020 THE " PRIM A VERA " EDW 24. condemned as prize by the Judge of the Vice-Admiralty Court at Martinique, the claimant appealed from that decision^ and the goods were in consequence sold, and the proceeds paid into the Registry of that Court to abide the event of the appeal The appeal was afterwards pronounced to be deserted, and a monition was prayed on behalf of the [24] captor against. Mr Martmdale, the deputy registrar ol the Vice-Admiralty Court, \\hich had ceased to exist, to bring in the proceeds into the Registry of this Court Mr Martindale, who was in England at the time, appeared to the monition, and stated that he had remitted the proceeds to the house of TurnbulL, Forbes, and Co of London, conformably to the directions he had received from Mr Bentinck his principal, and prayed to be dismissed. Upon this statement the Court declined granting an attachment against him, but refused his prayer to be dismissed, being of opinion that there might still be sufficient reason for holding him before the Court till it had determined upon the question of loss which has been sustained in consequence of the failure of this house of Turnbull and Co. in London A monition was then applied for by the captors against Mr. Bentinck the principal registrar, and an act has been entered into by all the parties, which states the facts of the case, and the grounds upon which they respectively consider themselves entitled to be exonerated Mr Bentinck has appeared under protest, probably because the transaction took place in another Court ; but where a Vice-Admiralty Court has been abolished, this Court, in a variety of instances, has felt itself authorised upon its general jurisdiction, which extends universally over the king's dominions, to interfere, and to supply the remedy in order to prevent a failure of justice Mr Bentinck states that he was the principal registrar, and that it was a rule of the Court, founded upon an order of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ducale and Another v Minister for Justice and Others
...14.2.2012 2012 IEHC 72 ALI v MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP COOKE 25.3.2011 2011/2/497 2011 IEHC 115 M (T)(A MINOR) & ORS v MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP EDWARDS 23.11.2009 2009/37/9192 2009 IEHC 500 REFUGEE ACT 1996 S18(2) HASSAN v MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP COOKE 25.11.2010 2010/21/5179 2010 IEHC 426 HAMZA v M......
-
O'Leary & Lemiere v Min for Justice
...MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM RESPONDENT IMMIGRATION ACT 2004 S4(7) CONSTITUTION ART 41 M (T) & ORS v MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP EDWARDS 23.11.2009 2009/37/9192 2009 IEHC 500 CONSTITUTION ART 42 MCGEE v AG & REVENUE CMRS 1974 IR 284 R (E) v R (J) 1981 ILRM 125 1981/7/1106 MURRAY ......
-
Seeruttun v Governor of Cloverhill Prison
...v GOVERNOR OF CLOVERHILL PRISON UNREP SUPREME 28.10.2011 2011/20/5060 2011 IESC 41 DARCHIASHVILI v GOVERNOR OF MOUNTJOY WOMENS PRISON UNREP EDWARDS 23.6.2011 2011/11/2565 2011 IEHC 264 IMMIGRATION ACT 1999 (DEPORTATION) REGS 2005 SI 55/2005 REG 7 CONSTITUTION ART 40.4.2 IMMIGRATION ACT 1999......
-
R v Teresa Carol Ann Wilkes and Others
...therefore to interfere with the sentence imposed upon Edwards which he richly deserved. 13 I now come to Mullins. He is a year older than Edwards, 23 years of age. He has got a dreadful record. It begins in 1974, when he was convicted, among other things, of burglary and theft. Two years la......
-
How Law Made Silicon Valley
...employee-transmitted knowledge spillovers."); see also James Pooley & Mark Lemley, California Restrictive Employee Covenants After Edwards, 23 Cal. Lab. & Emp. L. Rev., Jan. 2009, at 3, 29 ("California's long-standing ban on employee covenants not to compete is a centerpiece of state innova......
-
Restitution and Disgorgement
...The requirement of a total failure of consideration is typically illustrated by the two contrasting cases of Hunt v Silk 22 and Giles v Edwards . 23 In Hunt v Silk , a landlord had agreed to execute a lease for nineteen years within ten days and perform some repairs on the subject property,......