The "New Draper"-(Walker, Master)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 July 1802 |
| Date | 20 July 1802 |
| Court | High Court of Admiralty |
English Reports Citation: 165 E.R. 615
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY
[287] the " new draper "-(Walker, Master). July 20, 1802.-Case of possession.-Master dispossessed at the application of a majority of interests. (Instance Court) This was a case of possession, instituted on the part of Crauford, Whately, and others, composing the majority of owners, against Walker, a part owner of 7-16ths, and also master of the vessel. It appeared that the property of the vessel was divided in the following manner : 7-16ths were held by several persons in Dublin, the master was the owner of 7-16ths, and the remaining 2-16ths were held by persons in London. On the part of the master, the King's Advocate and Adams.-The Court would not interfere to disturb the possession, unless on the application of a clear majority of interests. As the shares originally stood, the master had so great a preponderance, that if the owner of l-16th joined with him, it would create an equality of interests. In the present case, it appears that a sale of the other 7-16ths has been made to the master, by which he is in effect the holder of 7-8ths The bill of sale has not, indeed, been executed, but the master has paid his money under the contract. The Court would not interfere, therefore, to dispossess a master standing in this situation But, if the master is not taken to be the holder of a majority of interest, in his own person, there is no evidence before the Court to shew that the suit was brought by such consent of the other part owners, as will constitute a majority against him. The affidavit, which has been made by Mr. Crauford, states that he came over from Ireland to [288] arrest the ship, and that he is authorised to act for the Dublin owners ; but it does not specify that he is invested with a power of attorney to institute a suit against this ship on their behalf, but only, that he is empowered to act for them generally. There is before the Court an affidavit of Mr Oldham, the person acting as agent of the Dublin owners, in the agreement to transfer their shares to Walker, in which he states, " that he had been in Dublin, and had seen Mr. Prentice, who declared to him, that his house of trade was willing to execute the agreement, and that they had not authorised Crauford, or any other person, to arrest the ship." By the dissent which this person has expressed, it is evident that the parties in the suit do not compose a majority of interests. ^...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Treasure Valley Group Ltd v Saputra Teddy and Another (Ultramarine Holdings Ltd, intervener)
...in the vessel were registered in the name of the plaintiff, there being no registered part-owner unlike the facts in The New Draper (1802) 4 C Rob 287; 165 ER 615, an authority cited by Mr Lim in respect of a claim for 12 Gray Clare filed two affidavits on behalf of the plaintiff. It appear......
-
Treasure Valley Group Ltd v Saputra Teddy and Another (Ultramarine Holdings Ltd, intervener)
...were registered in the name of the plaintiff, there being no registered part-owner unlike the facts in The New Draper (1802) 4 C Rob 287; 165 ER 615, an authority cited by Mr Lim in respect of a claim for 12 Gray Clare filed two affidavits on behalf of the plaintiff. It appears from his fir......