The "Ironsides"
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 March 1862 |
| Date | 04 March 1862 |
| Court | High Court of Admiralty |
English Reports Citation: 167 E.R. 205
HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALITY
S C. 31 L. J (Adm) 129; 6 L. T 59, 1 Mar L C (Crockford) 200 Referred to, The "Dantzig," 1863, Br. & Lush 104; The "langdale," 1907, 76 L J (Adm.) 154 Referred to, The "Marlborough Hill" v. Cowan & Sons, [1921] 1 A C 444.
[458] the " ironsides '' March 4, 1862 -Damage to goods imported-Goods transhipped -Statute retrospective -24 Viet c 10, ss. 3, 6, 35 -The general presumption that "a statute is not intended to have a retrospective operation may give way to a contrary inference from the remedial nature of the particula enactment The immunity of a res from arrest to satisfy a lawful claim on the owner is not a " vested right " The 6th and 35th sections of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, which, taken together, give a remedy in lein to the owner of imported goods for breach of contract bv the foreign shipowner, are remedial, and, subject to equitable considerations applying to proceedings in retn, confer jurisdiction over causes of action which accrued m peisonam before the date of the Act coming into operation But the remedy conferred is not against any other ship than that in which the goods are carried into England or Wales. Three hundred bales of cotton were shipped on board vessel A , consigned to the plaintiffs in Liverpool, and a large number of bales was also shipped, consigned to other parties A fire broke out on board the ship , and in result part of the cargo was destroyed, part was sold abroad, and the residue, con-ssting ol 250 bales, was transhipped and carried on to Liverpool by vessel B. The marks on the bales were there found to be obliterated, and the consignees were called on by advertisement to identify their property The plaintiffs could identify one bale only, which was in a damaged condition Vessel A afterwards came on to Liverpool Held, that the plaintiffs had no right under the statute to arrest vessel A. [8 C. 31 L. J (Adm ) 129 ; 6 L. T 59 , 1 Mar L C (Crockford) 200 Referred to, The " Dantztff," 1863, Br. & Lush 104; The ' Langdale," 1907, 76 L J (Adm.) 154 Referred to, The " Marlborough Hill " v. Cowan & Sons, [1921] 1 A C 444.] This was a cause instituted against the American ship " Ironsides/' under the 6th section of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 The owners appeared under protest to the juriidiction, The following facts appeared upon the proceedings on protest The plaintiffs, Messrs. Lucy & Son, of Liverpool, were owners and consignees of 300 bales of cotton, shipped on board the " Ironsides " at New Orleans The hdls of lading bore date 25th and 26th of March 1861 On the 4th of Aprd 1861 the " Ironsides " left New Orleans, bound for Liverpool, with a cargo of 2400 bales of cotton, including the 300 bales belonging to the plaintiffs On the 29th of April, while the ship was crossing the bar of the Mississippi, her cargo took fire Means were taken to extinguish the fire, aud eventually it was put out, but not until the ship had been entirely filled with water The ship was then taken back to New Orleans, and the cargo was there discharged. Part of the cargo was found to be totally destroyed, and other parts so badly damaged, that the agents of the defendants sold it on or about the 20th of May, as the [459] necessity of the case required, for 206 the "ironsides" lush.no. the benefit of whom it might concern. 250 bales only out of the 2400 shipped were fit for shipment to Liverpool, and they were accordingly put in order and shipped to Liverpool in a ship called the " Valentma." The '' Valentma " arrived in Liverpool on the 26th of June 1861, and the marks on many bales being obliterated, the usual advertisement was published calling upon the consignees of cargo to come forward and identify their property The plaintiffs attended, but could identify one bale only as their property, and that bale was m a damaged condition Seventeen other bales were identified by other consignees, and the remaining 232 were sold for the benefit of whom it might concern. The " Ironsides '' came to England in December 1861, and was then arrested by the plaintiffs in Liverpool, where she remained under arrest for ten days. The grounds of protest assigned by the petition of the defendants were :- 1. That the damage done to the goods of the plaintiffs was done before the time appointed for the coming into operation of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 2. That no part of the goods of the plaintiffs was carried into any port in England or Wales, and that the plaintiffs were estopped from alleging the contrary. 3. That no part of the goods of the plaintiffs was carried into any port in England or Wales in the ship " Ironsides " The plaintiffs alleged non-delivery of the goods, and damage to the goods by the negligence of the defendants The 24 Viet, c. 10 (Admiralty Court Act, 1861), enacts, S. 3. " This Act shall come into operation on the first day of June 1861." S. 6 " The High Court of Admiralty shall have jurisdiction over any claim by the owner or consignee or assignee of any bill of lading of any goods earned into any port in England or Wales in any ship, for damage done to the goods or any part thereof, by the negligence or misconduct of, or for any breach of duty or breach of contract on the part of the owner, master, or crew of the ship, unless it is shewn to the satisfaction of the Court that at the time of the institution of the cause any owner or part-owner of the ship is domiciled in England or Wales Provided always, that if in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Re GG Ponnambalam
-
Pamela Tyrell v Director of the ONDCP
..."it is obviously competent for the legislature, in its wisdom, to make an act of Parliament retrospective." 55 Dr Lushington stated in the Ironsides [1862] 31 LJ PM of A 129, 131 as follows: "No one denies the competency of the legislature to pass retrospective statutes if they think fit, a......
-
The "Idas."
...upon all cases brought before it subsequent to the date assigned for the Act coming into operation Thus the sixth section, " Ironsides " (Lush 458) ; the thirty-fourth section, " Cameo " (Lush, 408^; the tenth section, " Gananoque " (Lush. 448). The same reasons apply to the eigith section,......
-
The Sheaf Brook
...of Appeal Bankes, Warrington, and Atkin, L.JJ. The Sheaf Brook The IronsidesENR Lush. 458 Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 (15 & 16 Geo. 5, c. 49), ss. 4, 22, 56, and 58 Practice — High Court action not within the jurisdiction of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Divis......