The "Volant"
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 April 1842 |
| Date | 19 April 1842 |
| Court | High Court of Admiralty |
English Reports Citation: 166 E.R. 616
HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY
the " vola.nt "-(Merchent) April 19, 1842 -Application for security for costs should be made in the earliest stage of the proceedings In ordinary cases the Court will enforce this rule Under the circumstances of the case security for costs decreed after the act on petition had been concluded, and both proctors assigned to bring in their proofs A part-owner who was on board, and in command of the damaging vessel at the time of the collision, held not responsible for the excess of damage beyond the proceeds of the ship. In order to render a master, part-owner, responsible beyond the value of the ship and freight, he must be sued as master in the first instance, and in the proceedings he must be personally charged with being the cause of the damage bv his misconduct, and that cannot be done directly or indirectly in another suit. [S C INotesofCas 508, 6 Jur 540 Dictum disapproved, The ' Bold Buccleugh," 1852, 7 Moore, P C 267. Applied, Tke"St Ol'tJ" 1869, L R 2 Ad & Ecc 360, The "Leon," 1881, 6P D 148, The " Heinruk Bjorn" 1885, 10 P D 54 , The "Cella" 1888, 13 P D 88, The ~Joanna Vatm" (No 2) [1922] P. 225. Referred to, R v Judge of City of London Court, [1892] 1 Q B 273; The " Dictator" [1892] P 304, The " Afncano," [1894] P 149 ] In this case an action was brought against this ship on behalf of the owner of the brig "' Beatitude," in a cause of damage by collision The action was entered in the sum of £2200, and bail was given for the " Volant " in £825, the amount of the agreed value of the ship only (under the stat 53 Geo III, c 159, si) A cross-action was also entered on behalf of the owner of the " Volant " against the " Beatitude," and bail having been given in the sum of £250. the cause proceeded by an act on petition, which was concluded on the bye clay of Hilary Term, and both proctors were assigned to bring in their proofs upon this Court day A motion was now made, by the owner of the " Volant," that the proctor for the lw Beatitude " might be compelled to give security for the costs of both actions, upon 1 W. ROB. 384. THE " VOLANT " 617 the ground that the owner of the " Beatitude " was resident abroad, and that the original action had been entered m his name, without his knowledge or authority The motion was opposed by Addams for the owner of the " Beatitude," submitting that the application should have been made earlier, and that it was contrary to the practice af the Court to grant it in this stage of the proceedings That in the Courts of Common Law it would be inadmissible, and its rejection in the present instance would be [384] attended with no detriment or prejudice, inasmuch as security had been already given in one of the actions on behalf of the owners of the " Beatitude." To this it was replied, that the security given would not cover the costs for which the present application was made Per Curiarn -According to the practice of other Courts, it is, I apprehend, the usual course that applications of this kind should be made in the earliest stage of the proceedings, and, in ordinary cases, I should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Judge of City of London Court
...Id. 298 Pigg v. Goldsburg Id. 299 Taylor v. Thompson Id. 302 Ewer v. Thirkettal Id. 310 De Kromment v. Chevalier Id. 321 The VolantENR 1 Wm. Rob. 383 The Triune 3 Hagg. Ad. 114 The HopeENR 1 Wm. Rob. 154 Wilson v. DixonENR 2 B. & Ald. 2 The RuckersENR 4 Ch. Rob. 79 The Agincourt 1 Hagg. Ad.......
- The Beldis
-
The Joannis Vatis (No. 2)
...(1899) P. 285 The DupleixDID=ASPMELR 12 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 122 106 L. T. Rep. 347 (1912) P. 8 The HopeENR 1 Wm. Rob. 154 The VolantENR 1 Wm. Rob. 383 The KalamazooUNK 15 Jur. 885 The Duchesse de Brabant Swa. 264 The John and Mary Swa. 471 The Bengal Swa. 468 Nelson v. Couch 33 Law Jour. C. ......
-
MT Argun v Master and Crew of the MT Argun and Others
...304 ([1891 - 4] All ER Rep 360): referred to The Indian Grace (No 2) [1998] 1 Lloyds Rep 1 (HL): referred to The Volant (1842) 1 W Rob 382 (166 ER 616): referred to G Thermo Radiant Oven Sales (Pty) Ltd v Nelspruit Bakeries (Pty) Ltd 1969 (2) SA 295 (A): dictum at 310D - E Transol Bunker BV......
-
List of cases
...of Ship Ionian Mariner (1997) 77 FCR 563Vanderwater v Mills 60 US 82 (1857), see The Yankee BladeVeritas, The [1901] P 304Volent, The (1842) 1 W Rob 383Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538Wall v The British Barque Royal Saxon (1853-1854) 2 American Law Register 324Walter H......
-
Limitation of Liability as a Risk Allocation Mechanism in Maritime Law
...WLR 259, 265-6 (CA). 4 Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims Act 1989 (Cth); Maritime Transport Act 1994 (NZ) Pt 7. 5 The Volant (1842) 1 W Rob 383, 387; 166 ER 616, 618 (Admir). 6 Kenneth C McGuffie Marsden , The Law of Collisions at Sea (Stevens & Sons, 11 th ed, 1961) 129–134. 7 Fo......