Smith v Owners of the SS Zigurds
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 December 1933 |
| Date | 14 December 1933 |
| Court | House of Lords |
House of Lords
Lords Atkin, Tomlin and Russell
Smith v. E. A. Casper, Edgar, and Co. Limited; The Zigurds
Freight — Authority to collect freight given by master to ship's agent — Equitable assignment of freight
Decision of the Court of Appeal (reported sub nom. The Zigurds, ante, p. 332; 148 L. T. Rep. 381; (1933) P. 87) affirmed.
ASPINALL'S MARITIME LAW CASES. 475 K.B. Div.] SMITH v. E. A. CASPUR, EDGAR, AND CO. LIM. ; THE ZIGURDS. [H. OF L. House of lords. Thursday, Dec. 14, 1933. (Before Lords ATKIN, TOMLIN and RUSSELL.) Smith v. E. A. Casper, Edgar, and Co. Limited ; The Zigurds. (a) ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL IN ENGLAND. Freight - Authority to collect freight given by master to ship's agent - Equitable assignment of freight - Notice - Letter to receivers of cargo informing them of authority to collect freight " against which we have made payments " - Sufficiency of notice - Priorities. The master of the Latvian steamship Z. on arrival at the port of West Hartlepool, gave to the respondents, who were the ship's agents, an equitable assignment of the freight. Unless such an assignment had been given the ship's agents would have refused to make the necessary disbursements for the Z. Thereupon the ship's agents wrote the following letter to the receivers of the cargo, who were liable to pay the freight: " S.S. Zigurds. We beg to give you notice that we hold the captain's authority to collect the freight for this steamer against which we have made payments." Held, that the respondents' letter to the receivers of the cargo was a good notice of their equitable charge and that as between them and the appellant who was an earlier equitable assignee of the freight and had given no notice of his assignment, the respondents were entitled to priority. Decision of the Court of Appeal (reported sub nom. The Zigurds, ante, p. 332; 148 L. T. Rep. 381 ; (1933) P. 87) affirmed. APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeal (Scrutton, Lawrence, and Greer, L.JJ.), reported under the name of The Zigurds (ante, p. 332; 148 L. T. Rep. 881 ; (1933) P. 87), reversing a decision of Langton, J. The respondents had acted as agents for the Latvian steamship Zigurds at West Hartlepool in March, 1031, and in that capacity had made various disbursements on behalf of the vessel. Before making any such disbursements, and, as a condition of so do ng, the respondents obtained from the master of the Zigurds a document in the following terms : " Please pay the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- The "Arosa Star"
-
Dry Bulk Handy Holding Inc. (a company incorporated in Panama) & Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA v Fayette International Holdings Ltd (a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands) & Metinvest International SA
...LJ in James Talcott Ltd v John Lewis & Co Ltd, [1940] 3 All E R 592, 595D/E. This is well illustrated in a shipping context by Smith v Owners of SS "Zigurds", [1934] AC 209. Where the assignment is by way of the crystallisation of a floating charge, the assignment is effective against the......
-
Dry Bulk Handy Holding Inc. v Fayette International Holdings Ltd [QBD (Comm)]
...v CoxELR (1881) 17 Ch D 520. Seven Seas Transportation v Atlantic Shipping Co SAUNK [1975] 2 Ll Rep 188. Smith v Owners of SS ZigurdsELR [1934] AC 209. Somerset v CoxENR (1865) 33 Beav 634; 55 ER 514. Synthon BV v Smithkline Beecham plcUNK [2005] UKHL 59. Tradigrain SA v King Diamond Marine......
-
Ballantrae Holdings Inc. v. Ship Phoenix Sun et al., 2016 FC 570
...They were the first to give actual notice and so were entitled to the freight. That decision was affirmed by the House of Lords, [1934] AC 209, (1933) 47 Ll LR 267. The case relating to the freight had nothing to do with the relative rankings of mortgage creditors and necessaries men. [110]......
-
The impact of the Personal Property Securities Act on assignments of accounts.
...1, 6 (Atkinson J); Walker v Bradford Old Bank Ltd (1884) 12 QBD 511, 517 (Williams and Smith JJ). (82) Smith v Owners of the SS Zigurds [1934] AC 209, 212-13 (Lord (83) See Denney v Conklin [1913] 3 KB 177, 180 (Aitken J): The letter in question gives express notice to the defendant of the ......