The Thames Iron Works Company v The Patent Derrick Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 April 1860 |
| Date | 20 April 1860 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 70 E.R. 676
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 29 L. J. Ch. 714; 6 Jur. (N. S.) 1013; 2 L. T. 208; 8 W. R. 408. See Lievesley v. Gilmore, 1866, L. R. 1 C. P. 573.
Shipbuilder's Lien. Sale. Judge's Order. Specific Performance.
676 THE THAMES IRON WORKS COMPANY V. 1J. & H. 93. [93] the thames iron works company v. the patent derrick company. April 19, 20, 1860. [S. C. 29 L. J. Oh. 714; 6 Jur. (N. S.) 1013; 2 L. T. 208; 8 W. E. 408. See Lievesley v. Gilmore, 1866, L. E. 1 C. P. 573.] Shipbuilder's Lien. Sale. Judge's Order. Specific Performance. A common law lien does not, in general, authorise a sale. This rule is subject to certain exceptions; but they do not extend to give a right of sale in every case where the retaining of the chattel involves considerable expense. In a case where a common law right of sale existed, the mere fact that after the sale accounts might require adjustment by the Court would not give jurisdiction to a Court of Equity to decree a sale. A Judge's order giving liberty to sign judgment, with a stay of execution in the event of certain conditions being performed, is not an agreement to perform those conditions; and even if the terms are ordered substantively to be performed, the remedy for default is in the Court where the order was made, and not by a bill for specific performance. Therefore, where shipbuilders had built a ship according to contract, and retained her by virtue of their lien for the balance of price unpaid, and had, in an action, obtained by consent of a Judge's order for the amount, with a stay of execution in case the Defendants should pay half and give a mortgage on the ship for the remainder- to a bill alleging these facts, and that the retainer of the ship involved great expense, and praying a sale, or specific performance of the conditions of the Judge's order, a demurrer was allowed. This case came on upon demurrer. The material facts stated in the bill were as follows:- By an agreement, dated the 30th of June 1857, the Plaintiffs agreed to build for the Defendants an iron vessel, to be delivered on the 1st of November 1857, and the price to be ascertained in the manner provided for by the terms of the agreement, and to be paid by certain instalments, the last of which was to be payable on the completion and delivery of the ship. The Plaintiffs completed the vessel ready for delivery, but had never parted with the vessel, and a balance of £11,135, 16s. 7d. remained due to them. The amount of [94] this balance had been in dispute, and the Plaintiffs had commenced an action to-recover it, and, on the 5th of January 1860, a Judge's order was made therein by consent, ordering that the Plaintiffs should be at liberty to sign judgment for the amount claimed and £150 for costs, the judgment not to be enforced by execution or otherwise, unless default should be made by the Defendants in carrying out the stipulations thereinafter mentioned; that is to say, first, the Defendants to pay half the said amount by the 1st of February 1860; secondly, the residue to be secured by a mortgage of the vessel with a power of sale; and it was also ordered that, in case of default in fulfilling the above terms or any of them, the Plaintiffs should be at liberty immediately to issue execution for the whole amount. And, the Defendants admitting the lien of the Plaintiffs as builders for the amount of the judgment, it was ordered that the said order should not prejudice the said lien-such lien, nevertheless, to cease on the execution and delivery of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Emilia Shipping Inc v State Enterprise for Pulp and Paper Industries
...incurred in the exercise of the lien. The lien is a passive lien. He has referred to The Thames Iron Works Co v The Patent Derrick Co (1860) 70 ER 676; Dangar v Gospel Oak Iron Co (1860) 6 TLR 260; Soames v British Empire Shipping Co (1860) 11 ER 459; and Bruce v Everson (1883) Cab & El 18.......
-
Metall Market OOO v Vitorio Shipping Company Ltd
...to Somes only in an obiter aside and did not apply it. 74 Somes was cited to the court, but not by the court, in The Thames Iron Works Company v. The Patent Derrick Company (1860) 1 J & H 93, a decision of Sir Page Wood V-C. A shipyard built a ship and the outstanding account was made the s......
-
Kobi's Auto Ltd v 5174245 Manitoba Ltd et al, 2018 MBCA 134
...of sale to satisfy the debt owed (see Smart v Sandars (1848), 136 ER 1132 at 1135 (CP (Eng)); Thames Iron Works Co v Patent Derrick Co (1860), 70 ER 676 at 677-78 (Ch (Eng)); and Larner v Fawcett, [1950] 2 All ER 727 at 729 (CA (Eng))). The wrongful sale of chattels subject to a lien ......
- Swainston v Clay