The City of Agra
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 July 1898 |
| Date | 07 July 1898 |
| Court | Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division |
Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division
Barnes, J.
The City of Agra
The County of DurhamDID=ASPMELR 64 L. T. Rep. 146 6 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 606 (1891) P. 1
Pugsley v. RopkinsDID=ASPMELR 67 L. T. Rep. 369 7 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 215 (1892) 2 Q. B. 184
The HeroDID=ASPMELR 65 L. T. Rep. 499 7 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 86 (1891) P. 294
County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71), s. 21.
Collision County Courts jurisdiction Action in personam
MARITIME LAW CASES. 457 ADM.] THE CITY OF AGRA. [ADM. PROBATE, DIVORCE, AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION. ADMIRALTY BUSINESS. July 4 and 7, 1898 (Before BARNES, J.) The City of Agra, (a) Collision - County Courts jurisdiction - Action in personam - Service of summons - Owner resident abroad - Agent - County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1868 (31 32 Vict. c. 71), s. 21 Where, a Scotchman resident out of the jurisdiction was sued in personam on the Admiralty side of the County Court for a collision, and his agent in this country was served under the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1868, s. 21, sub-s. 2, it is held that the court had no jurisdiction because, at the time of the commencement of the proceedings, the defendant's vessel, to which the cause related, had been lost, and the agency in respect of such vessel had ceased. The words "agent in England" in the County Courts Admiralty jurisdiction Act 1868, s. 21, subs. 2, mian a person acting for another in relation to the vessel or property proceeded against at the time the service of the process is effected. THIS was an application by the defendant in a cause of collision in personam, instituted by the plaintiffs, the owners of the barge Colnmouth, in the City of London Court, in respect of a collision between that barge and the steamship City of Agra, belonging to the defendant. The summons was served upon Messrs. Mont-gomerie and Workman, of the city of London, who had acted as agents for the City of Agra, and the application was to set aside the service and for a prohibition. The facts were briefly as follows: The plaintiffs were the London and Tilbury Lighterage, Contracting, and Dredging Company Limited, and the defendant was Mr. George Smith, who resided in Scotland. On the 6th Jan. 1897 a collision occurred between the two vessels in the Victoria Docks, within the jurisdiction of the City of London Court. At the time of the collision the City of Agra was running in a line of steamships of which Messrs. Montgomerie and Workman were the agents. The City of Agra was lost on the 2nd Feb. 1897, after which date Messrs. Montgomerie and Workman ceased to act as agents for her. On the 9th June 1897 the summons in the action was served upon Messrs. Montgomerie and Workman. An application was made by the defendant to the judge of the City of London Court to set aside the service of the summons upon the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction and that the service was improper. This application was referred by the learned judge to the High Court. The material portion of sect. 21 of the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 71) is as follows: (a) Reported by BULTLER ASPINAIL and SUTTON TIMMIS, Esqra. Barristers-at-Law. Proceedings in an Admiralty cause shall be commenced: (1) In the County Court having Admiralty jurisdiction within the district of which the vessel or property to which the cause relates is at the commencement of the proceedings; (2) If the foregoing rule be not applicable, then in the County Court having Admiralty jurisdiction in the district of which the owner of the vessel or property to which the cause relates, or his agent in England resides. Simey and Bateson for the defendant in support of the motion. Batten, contra. The arguments of counsel appear in the judgment of the learned judge. July 7. - Barnes, J. - In this case the learned judge of the City of London Court intimated to the parties that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
TWO METHODS OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
...on Evidence (3rd ed., 1940), pp.1362-1364. 25 1 [bid., pp.%lO. See also J. B. Thayer, A Preliminary Treatke on Evidence at the Common Law (1898), p.198. 556 THE MODERN LAW REVIEW [Vol. 51 influence on the French Enlightenment and on the reform of European procedure,26 they have traditionall......
-
The Trend Toward Federal Centralization
...Journal, Ibid., June 18, p. 130.9 Journal, Ibid., June 15, p. 126; May 29, p. 77.10 The Federalist, edited by P. L. Ford, NewYork, 1898, pp. 198, 203-4, 309, 573-574.11 Madison Papers, III, p. 1565.12 Art. I, sec. 9: 2, 3. Later a bill of rights wasincluded in the first ten amendments.13 Jo......