St. Juan de Luz v Pococke
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1766 |
| Date | 01 January 1766 |
| Court | High Court of Admiralty |
English Reports Citation: 167 E.R. 445
HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY
Prize st. juan de Luz v. pococke (I)1. 4th Seas. East. Term, 1766 -Q Has the Court jurisdiction over the frame of a vessel one-third built, or should it be considered as naval stores, and so falls under Art 4 of the Capitulation ?-Protest ill founded and Tyndal assigned to appear absolutely. Dr. Harriot -This question arises on the frame of a vessel one-third built in a yard at the Havannah, taken by Lord Albemarle and Sir Geo Pococke Don Bartholemew de Montes and Don Josh. Vettia claim two-thirds of the vessel , they entered their claim the 22nd May 1764, two years after the capture 3rd July Tyndal appeared under protest to the jurisdiction of this Court-that not being afloat at sea, it must be considered as naval stores, and so falls under the 4th article of the Capitulation of August 1762. This protest is strengthened by the agent's affidavit, wiich sets forth the claimants' purchase of the materials at a public sale, which proves they relinquished their claim, and is the ground of our protest. Dr. Wynne -This ship was on the stocks , two-thirds belonged to merchants at the Havannah and one-third for a merchant in Old Spain-Don Francesco Montes. AJter the Capitulation, [6] Mr. Kenyon, aa agent for Lord Albemarle. seized her as-prize, and without proceeding to adjudication put her up to sale. The claimants, to- preserve the ship in their possession, purchased her of Kenyon ; the hull, long boat, and yawl, for 1100 dollars, and 2000 dollars for timber. It was agreed they should be allowed to bring down wood from the forests to compleat the ship Notwithstanding this, the same day, viz. 23rd November 1762, to preserve their right, they entered a protest against the sale and agreement, as being entitled under the llth article of the Capitulation, they never meant to relinquish their claim, but to preserve the ship entire for their own use The timbers which by the agreement they were allowed to bring from the woods to finish the vessel were afterwards seized. They claim the two-thirds as not liable to seizure, and which they insist ought to be restored to them, as inhabitants of the Havannah, by the llth article of the Capitulation. The agreement is annexed to the claim Dr. Marriot.-The ground of our protest is that this ship was not afloat. The transaction was in the dockyard, therefore must be considered as relative only to nival stores at land. Your...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grace Humble against Hunter
...continuing. And the case put is an extreme one, aud within the class of those in which the contract is considered personal. In Bkkertun v. Burrell (5 M. & S. 383), which may be relied upon for the defendant, this Court held that a party who, throughout tho transactions of a purchase by auct......
-
Gillett v Offor and Gamman
...personally liable to an action for damages for not completing the contract: but that is not sustained by any subsequent (a) See Mckerton v. Burrell, 5 M. & Selw. 383, 18 C. B.915. GILLETT V, OFFOR 1633 authority. No doubt, if the principal be not disclosed at the time of entering into the c......
-
Schmaltz v Avery
...party, but the name of the principal not being therein mentioned. The cases principally relied on for the defendant were Bickerton v. Burrell (5 M. & S. 383), and Rayner v. Grote (15 M. & W. 359), in both which cases the supposed principal was named in the instrument of contract: also the c......
-
Dykes v Blake
...a coffee-house keeper or hatter, but with no notice that he was prohibited from using it for the pur- poses of a fruiterer ; Coves-icy v. Burrell (5 B. & Ald. 257), where a Waterloo Bridge annuity was put up for sale without notice of its being redeemable. The same principle appears in Tomk......