The "Jacob"-(Baer, Master)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 March 1802 |
| Date | 31 March 1802 |
| Court | High Court of Admiralty |
English Reports Citation: 165 E.R. 600
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY
Referred to, The "Royal Arch," 1857, Swa 284. Commented on, Smith v. Bank of New South Wales, 1872, L R 4 P. C 194; 8 Moore, P. C (N S) 443
[245] the " jacob "-(Baer, Master). March 31, 1802.-Bottomry bond.-Freight of a subsequent voyage, under what circumstances held liable for the bond. (Instance Court ) [Referred to, The " Royal Arch," 1857, Swa 284. Commented on, Smith v. Bank of New Smith Wales, 1872, L R 4 P. C 194 ; 8 Moore, P. C (N S ) 443 ] This was a question respecting the freight of a subsequent voyage, whether it was liable to be attached for payment of a bottomry bond, entered into on the part of the ship on a preceding voyage The act on petition set forth the circumstances of the obligation in Baltimore, in 1800 , the arrival of the ship at Dublin, September 1800 ; her departure from thence on a second voyage to America, and her return to the port of London in June 1801, where Mr. Rucker, the legal owner of the bond, had eaused the vessel to be arrested, and had obtained a decree of this Court against the ship, tackle, and freight; the ship had been sold, and the proceeds, 911, being insufficient to discharge the bond, the act further alleged the freight which had been decreed to Mr. Rucker, by the aforesaid decree, or pmmum decretum of the Court, to be in the hands of Messrs Pedder and Co of London, and prayed that the Court would direct that freight to be brought in, and applied to the discharge of this bond Against the demand, Laurence and Sewell.-Bonds of this nature are not suable against the freight of a subsequent voyage ; no case can be produced in which such effects have been ascribed to them It is in its nature a maritime [246] contract respecting the present voyage, in which the parties must be supposed to have contracted for the liability of the present freight, and the sufficiency of that freight to answer the demand in question In other Courts, perhaps, means may be found of enforcing a personal claim against the owner on this demand. But then an opportunity would be allowed of excepting against the quantum of the demand, and of stating other objections arising upon it This bond was entered into for the purpose, as it is expressed, of carrying the vessel from Baltimore to Cork, where the bond was expressed to be payable. It never was in the contemplation of the parties to hypothecate more than the freight of that voyage. On the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v The Bank of New South Wales; The Staffordshire
...Lord Justice Mellish, Sir Montague E. Smith, Sir Robert Collier Smith v. The Bank of New South Wales; The Staffordshire The JacobENR 4 C. Rob. 245 Hickling v. HardeyENR 7 Taunt. 312 The HeroENR 2 Dods. 139, 143 The Duchesse de BrabantENR Swab. 264 Bottomry — Necessity of repairs — Duty of c......
-
The "Royal Arch"-(W A Kenney, Master)
...sue on the bond, there is no case in these Courts, to my knowledge, which applies with any stringency There is the case of The " Jacob " (4 C Rob 245) That was a suit on a bottomry bond, and the question was, whether freight, earned on a voyage subsequent to that for wtich the bond was give......
-
The Staffcradshire
...Court of Admiralty (Ireland) Townsend, J. The Staffcradshire The PanamaUNK L. Rep. 3 P. C. 199 22 L. T. Rep. N. S. 73 The JacobENR 4 Ch. Rob. 245 The ZephyrUNK 3 Mason, 441 La YsableENR 1 Dod. 277 The OlivierENR Lush. 484 The OrientalENR 7 Moo. P. C. 398 The HamburgENR Br. & Lush. 253 The K......