The Moorcock
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 February 1889 |
| Date | 25 February 1889 |
| Court | Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division |
Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division
Butt, J., assisted by Trinity Masters
The Moorcock
Damage Bed of river Grounding of vessel
MARITIME LAW CASES. 357 ADM.] THE MOORCOCK. [ADM. Wednesday, July 18,1888. (Before Butt, J., assisted by Trinity Masters.) The Moorcock. (6) Damage - Bed of river - Grounding of vessel - Liability of wharfinger. Where an agreement is entered into between shipowners and wharfingers that a ship shall proceed to a wharf in the Thames for the purpose of discharging and loading cargo, and it is necessary that she should take the ground when the tide ebbs, there is an implied representation by the wharfingers that they have taken reasonable care to ascertain that the bottom of the river at the wharf is, in such a condition as not to injure the skip on her taking the ground; and if by reason of the uneven nature of the bed of the river she is injured, the wharfingere are liable. This was an action in personam, by Robert (a) See The Moorcock, (supra); and The Calliope, p. 359. (b) Reported by J. P. ASPINAL and BUTLER ASPINALL, Esqrs., Barrister-at-Law. 358 MARITIME LAW CASES. ADM.] THE MOORCOOK. [ADM. Thomson, the owner of the steamship Moorcock, against Middleton, Son, and Co. Limited, wharfingers, to recover damages for injury to the Moorcock, caused as hereinafter stated. The defendants were the owners of a wharf and pier abutting on the River Thames, known as St. Bride's Wharf. In .Nov. 1887 it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendants that the Moorcock should be discharged and loaded at St. Bride's Wharf. Prior to this agreement there was some conversation between the plaintiff and the managing director of the defendant company as to the suitability or safety of the place for the Moorcock to take the ground whenthe tide ebbed, and on one occasion at high water the plaintiff had seen the place himself. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had expressly represented that the place was safe. The defendants denied this. The effect of the evidence on this point is stated in the judgment. On the 14th Dec. the Moorcock was accordingly moored alongside the said wharf by the direction of the defendants for the purpose of discharging her cargo; but as the tide fell and she ceased to be waterborne she took the ground, and in consequence of its uneven nature she sustained the damage complained of. The Lad of the river at the place where the Moorcock took the ground was vested in the Conservators, and the defendants had do control over it. Barnes, Q.C. and Robson for the plaintiff. - It is contended that the defendants must be taken to have warranted that the bed of the river alongside the wharf was in a reasonably fit and proper condition for the Moorcock to take the ground, whereas the event shows it was not. It is further contended that the evidence shows there was an express representation to the like effect; and, lastly, it is submitted that there was a duty on the defendants to the plaintiff to keep the ground in a proper state, or at any rate to ascertain its condition before allowing the plaintiff's vessel to ground upon it: White v. Phillips, 15 C. B. N. S. 245; 33 L. J. 33, C. P. Finlay, Q.C. and Hollams for the defendants, contra. - There was no warranty or representation that the place was safe. The ground was vested in the Thames Conservators, who alone had control over it. The plaintiff might and ought to have ascertained for himself whether the place was safe before mooring his vessel at the wharf. The defendants did all that reasonable men could do, and have been guilty of no breach of duty to the plaintiff. Butt, J. - This is a case not free from difficulty, the facts of which, shortly stated, are these: The plaintiff, the owner of the steamship Moorcock, whilst casting about for suitable conveniences for discharging the cargoes which his vessel was in the habit of bringing from Antwerp to London, came to the conclusion that for many purposes St. Bride's Wharf, in the city of London, belonging to the defendants, was a good and convenient place for his purpose, and he accordingly put himself in communication with the defendants, and the result was a negotiation between the parties as to the discharge and loading of this vessel at St. Bride's Jetty. No doubt the arrangement come to was one intended for the mutual benefit of the two parties to it, and therefore whatever the promises or engagements on the one side or the other were, there was good consideration for them. The vessel arrived at the jetty on the 14th Dec. 1887, and was moored apparently properly alongside. She hod a cargo of considerable weight on board, and as the tide ebbed she settled down on the ground, becoming less and less waterborne. A strain was put on her from the uneven nature of the ground, a crack or a loud noise was heard, and it turned out that if she had not broken her back she had injured herself in some similar way. In these circumstances the plaintiff says he is entitled to recover these damages from the defendants, and he puts his case in several ways. He says, in the first place, there was a warranty that the place was safe and suitable for his vessel to be in. I do not agree with that. I do not think that there was any such warranty. Certainly there was no express warranty, neither do I think any such warranty was implied. Then he Bays there was an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States Shipping Board v Frank C. Strick & Company, Ltd
...6 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 599 63 L. T. Rep. 765 white v. Steamship Winchester CompanyUNK 23 Sc. L. R., 342 The MoorcockDID=ASPM 6 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 373 60 L. T. Rep. 654 14 Prob. Div. 64 Charter-party — Demurrage — Lay days Decision of the Court of Appeal affirmed. 40 ASPINALL'S MARITIME LAW CA......
-
BNJ v SMRT Trains Ltd
...the plaintiff and the defendant, and no clear evidence as to the express oral terms of the contract (see the first instance decision: (1888) 13 PD 157 at 159). It sufficed that the defendant wharfingers had agreed to allow the plaintiff shipowner, for consideration, to discharge his vessel ......
-
Skaarup Shipping Corp. v. Hawker Industries Ltd., Hawker Siddeley Canada Ltd. and Ship "Lionel A. Forsyth", (1980) 32 N.R. 622 (FCA)
...18 Aspinall's M.L.C. 422, refd to. [para. 5]. The Forfarshire (1908), 11 Aspinall's M.L.C. 158, refd to. [para. 5]. The Moorcock (1888), 13 P.D. 157, refd to. [para. The Devon (1923), 40 T.L.R. 136, refd to. [para. 5]. The Empress, [1923] P. 96, refd to. [para. 5]. The Grit, [1924] P. 246, ......
-
United States Shipping Board v Durrell & Company ; United States Shipping Board v Duffell ; United States Shipping Board v Butt & Sons
...6 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 592 63 L. T. Rep. 742 (1891) 1 Q. B. 35 Mackay v. DickELR 6 App Cas. 251 The MoorcockDID=ASPMUNK 6 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 373 60 L. T. 654 14 Prob. Div. 64 Hamlyn and Co. v. woodELR 65 L.T. Rep. 286 (1891) 2 Q. B. 488 Holme v. GuppyENR 3 M. & W., at p. 389 Roberts v. Bury C......