The County of Durham
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1891 |
| Date | 1891 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
Admiralty - County Court - Admiralty Jurisdiction - Breach of Charterparty - Plaintiffs' Ship within Jurisdiction - Venue -
By s. 3 of the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868, a county court having Admiralty jurisdiction shall have jurisdiction to try certain causes therein enumerated, viz., salvage, towage, necessaries, wages, damage to cargo or damage by collision, provided the value or amount claimed does not exceed the sums specified in the Act. By s. 21 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. By s. 1 of the County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1869, the two Acts of 1868 and 1869 are to be read as one. By s. 2 of the latter Act Admiralty jurisdiction is given: (1) As to any claim arising out of any agreement made in relation to the use or hire of any ship. By s. 4 of the latter Act s. 3 of the Act of 1868 is extended so as to apply to claims for damage to ships whether by collision or otherwise.
The plaintiffs, owners of a steamship, commenced an action in personam in the county court within the jurisdiction of which their vessel then was, against the defendants, the charterers, for breach of an alleged warranty in the charterparty as to the depth of water at the defendants' wharf, whereby the plaintiffs' vessel sustained damage whilst at the wharf, which was within the jurisdiction of another county court:—
Held, that as the two Acts of 1868 and 1869 are, by s. 1 of the latter Act, to be read as one, the language of ss. 3 and 21 of the Act of 1868 is thereby extended so as to include the plaintiffs' vessel in an action instituted under s. 2 of the Act of 1869, and that consequently the county court in which the action had been commenced had jurisdiction.
APPEAL by defendants from an order of the judge of the county court of Northumberland, holden at Newcastle, refusing to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for want of jurisdiction.
The question of jurisdiction arose as follows:—
On January 22, 1890, an action was commenced in the county court at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, by the plaintiffs, shipowners of Newcastle, against the defendants for 95l. 17s. 5d. damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiffs through their screw steamer, the County of Durham, taking the ground on July 20, 1889, at the defendants' wharf at Poole, the steamer having proceeded there in compliance with an alleged warranty as to the depth of water at the wharf, contained in a charterparty dated April 2, 1889, made between Charlton, McAllum, & Co. of Newcastle, and the defendants, and assigned by the former to the plaintiffs.
It was admitted that at the time of the commencement of the action the steamer County of Durham was in the Tyne within the jurisdiction of the Newcastle County Court.
On January 28 an appearance was entered by the defendants under reserve as to jurisdiction. On February 3 the defendants gave notice of motion to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction. On May...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Airline passenger fuel surcharges on long-haul flights: price-fixing
...calendar entry). [PA to BA senior manager A] has confirmed that she was in the office all day on 8 October 2004 (BA letter to OFT: Document 1891, p1). [...] interview: Document 1486, pp 17-19; [...] witness statement: Document 3298, p2; [...] second interview: Document 1713, pp 99-100, 109;......
-
Robb v Dundee City Council
...15 HLR 42 Watt v JamiesonSC 1954 SC 56 Textbooks, etc referred to: Bell, Principles, para 974 Broun, The Law of Nuisance in Scotland (1891), pp1 to 3,8,9, and 139 Oxford English Dictionary The Cause called before an Extra Division, comprising Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, Lord Johnston and Lad......
-
Pugsley v Ropkins
...L. T. Rep. N. S. 135; (1892)1 Q.B.273. (a) Reported by E. MANLEY SMITH, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. (b) of. The case of The County of Durham (1891) P. 1; 6 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 606), where Sir Jas. Hannen and Butt, J. decided that an action for breach of charter-party was rightly instituted by th......
-
The City of Agra
...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. La......