Smith against Johnson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 February 1812 |
| Date | 10 February 1812 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 104 E.R. 824
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
[213] smith against johnson (a)2. Monday, Feb. 10th, 1812. Disputes existing between the master and owner of a ship touching the ship's accounts on a certain voyage, they referred all actions and causes of action to arbitrators, who awarded (a)1 Qu. Soprani v. Skurro, Yelv. 18. (6) Le Blanc, J. was sitting on the special commission in Horsemonger-Lane. (a)2 Note of M. and S. 15 EAST, 214. POPLE V. WYATT 825 a balance to be paid by the owner to the master : Held that upon a rule for an attachment for non-payment of the sum awarded, it was not competent to the owner to claim a deduction of a certain sum, the price and proceeds of certain goods shipped on their joint account, the whole of which price had been paid by the owner in the first instance, on the ground that that particular adventure formed no part of the disputes between them, and had not been submitted to nor taken into the consideration of the arbitrators; because it was plainly within the terms and scope of the reference, the direct object of which was to make a final settlement of all matters of account between the parties; and it was the owner's own fault if he kept back that item of the account. The plaintiff being master, and the defendant owner of the ship " Lustre," bound on a voyage to Jamaica, agreed to ship goods on their joint account and expense, to be disposed of there, and that the proceeds should be accounted for by the plaintiff. The defendant thereupon purchased the goods, and paid the whole price for them. After the ship's return, disputes having arisen between them touching the ship's accounts, the parties by their several bonds referred all manner of actions and causes of action to two arbitrators, who thereupon awarded the defendant to pay to the plaintiff 2231. 10s. 4d. in full of all accounts, claims, and demands whatsoever due from the defendant to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff should accept the same in full accordingly, and that thereupon all differences and disputes subsisting between the partjes should finally cease and determine. A rule nisi for an attachment against the defendant for non-payment of the sum so awarded having been obtained ; Campbell insisted that the defendant was entitled to a deduction of 721. 9s.; which sum the affidavit of the defendant stated to be the amount of a moiety of the price of the goods invested and the proceeds thereof, for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Excomm Ltd v Guan Guan Shipping (Pte.) Ltd (Golden Bear)
-
Nomihold Securities Inc. v Mobile Telesystems Finance SA [QBD (Comm)]
...CLC 85. Sheffield United FC Ltd v West Ham United FC plc [2008] EWHC 2855 (Comm); [2008] 2 CLC 741. Smith v JohnsonENR (1812) 15 East 213; 104 ER 824. Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada v Lincoln National Life Insurance CoUNK [2004] EWCA Civ 1660; [2005] 2 CLC 664. Vale do Rio Doce Navegacao S......
-
Birks v Trippet
...the other party cannot set off a claim which he has neglected to bring forward before the arbitrator; but is concluded by such award. 15 East, 213, Smith v. Johnson. [(But see 5 Bing. 129, Thorpe v. Cooper, per Best C.J.) So, if a claim is within the scope of the reference of all matters in......
-
Nomihold Securities Inc. v Mobile Telesystems Finance SA
...issue that he could and should have raised in an earlier reference is well established and indeed ante-dates Henderson v Henderson: see Smith v Johnson, (1812) 15 East 213. However, where the previous dispute was determined in arbitration, the principle of Henderson v Henderson has a narrow......
-
Union Of India v Reliance Industries Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 1407 (Comm)
...a similar principle applicable to arbitration proceedings, based on the rule of abandonment, which could be traced to Smith v Johnson (1812) 15 East 213 (which predated Henderson itself). He also referred to Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering Company Ltd v Songa Offshore Equinox Ltd......