The Duo d'Aumale
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 December 1902 |
| Date | 01 December 1902 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Court of Appeal
Collins, M.R. and Mathew, L.J.
The Duo d'Aumale
Flower v. Rose 7 Times L. Rep. 280
Witted v. GalbraithELR 68 L. T. Rep. 354 (1893) 1 Q. B. 577
Williams v. CartwrightELR 71 L. T. Rep. 834 (1895) 1 Q. B. 142
Messey v. HeynesELR 21 Q. B. Div. 330
Rules of Supreme Court 1883, Order XI., r. 1 (g).
Practice Collision Action in personam
The judgment of Barnes, J. affirmed.
MARITIME LAW CASES. 359 Adm.] The Duc d'Aumale. [Ct. of App. Supreme Court of Judicature. COURT OF APPEAL, Monday, Dee. 1, 1902. (Before Collins, M.R. and Mathew, L.J.) The Duc d'Aumale. (a) Practice - Collision - Action in personam - Con current writ - Service out of jurisdiction - " Necessary or proper party" - Rules of Supreme Court 1883, Order XL, r. 1 (g). A collision occurred outside territorial waters between a British steamship and a French barque, which at the time was in tow of a British tug. An action was commenced in personam by the owners of the steamship against the owners of the tug and the owners of the barque in tow of her. Held, that the owners of the French vessel were "proper parties" within the meaning of Order XL, r. 1 (g), and that leave was properly (a) Reported by Christopher Heap, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 360 MARITIME LAW CASES. Ct. of App.] The Duc D'Aumale. [Ct. of App. given to issue concurrent writ and to serve notice of it out of the jurisdiction. The judgment of Barnes, J. affirmed. This was an appeal from a decision of Barnes, J. refusing to set aside an order of the President (Sir F.Jeune) granting leave to issue a concurrent writ in an action for damage by collision, and allowing notice of the same to be served out of the jurisdiction. The appellants were the Compagnie Maritime Francaise, the owners of the French barque Due d'Aumale, and the respondents were the Mary-church Steamship Company, the owners of the British steamship Camrose. On the 22nd June 1902 a collision occurred between the steamship Camrose and the Duc d'Aumale in the English Channel, but outside British territorial waters. The Duc d'Aumale at the time was in tow of the British steam-tug Challenge, and after the collision she put into Calais, while the Camrose proceeded on her voyage to Antwerp. Subsequently the Duc d'Aumale was towed to Dunkirk and there repaired. There was no collision between the Camrose and the tug Challenge. On the 2nd July proceedings were instituted by the owners of the Duc d'Aumale in the Tribunal of Commerce at Nantes against the owners of the Camrose, and, as no appearance was entered to the action, judgment was given against them by default on the 20th Aug., and they were pronounced solely in fault for the collision, and condemned in damages and costs. By the convention of the 8th July 1899, a judgment of a French court can be enforced in Belgium, and the owners of the Duc d'Aumale threatened to seize the Camrose in Antwerp, whereupon the owners of the Camrose agreed to give bail, without prejudice, for 250,000 franca, to prevent their vessel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Fagernes
...Divorce, and Admiralty Division Hill., J. The Fagernes The Duc d' AumaleDID=ASPMELR 9 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 359 87 L. T. Rep. 674 (1903) P. 18 Williams v. Cartwright and othersELR 71 L. T. Rep. 834 (1985) 1 Q. B. 142 Bree v. MarescauxELR 44 L. T. Rep. 765 7 Q. B. Div. 434 Re Smith 1876, 35 L. ......
-
The Hagen
...53 L. T. Rep. 612 5 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 491 (1885) 10 P. Div. 141 The Duc d' AumaleDID=ASPMELR 87 L. T. Rep. 674 9 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 359 (1903) P. 18 The MannheimDID=ASPMELR 75 L. T. Rep. 424 8 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 210 (1896) (1897) P. 13 Société Genérale de paris v Dreyfus Brothers 29 Ch. Di......