Vernon v Keyes
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 June 1812 |
| Date | 05 June 1812 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 128 E.R. 419
IN THE EXCHEQUER-CHAMBER.
retrospective, so as to prevent the return, although the illegality did not commence till after the vessel bad left Gottenburgh. Mansfield C. J. The merits of the case have never yet been examined into. The cases decided by Sir W. Scott deserve the greatest attention : for it is impossible that the boldness of the country can go on, if the Court of Admiralty adopts one line of decision, and the courts of common law another. Much may be said on the necessity of adhering strictly to the terms of those licences ; for it must be supposed, that when his majesty annexes a condition to his licence, it means something ; and if there are circumstances which will render the voyage legal beyond the time mentioned in the licence, they ought to be specified in such licence ; and persons who apply for such licences, ought to apply for the full time, within which a ship may with certainty be able to perform her voyage. Sir William Scott has decided in the two eases cited, that under particular circumstances, (and, to be sure very particular circumstances they are,) a ship, sailing after the expiration of the time specified by her licence, is saved from confiscation and capture. He is a Judge of great repute and learning, and his opinion is entitled to great authority. It seems as if the Plaintiff had never read his licence when be came to trial, or did not understand it ; or had no idea [487] that circumstances could extend the time thereby limited, for he was not ready to prove at the trial those circumstances which only could extend his licence: it would be very hard that the Defendant should therefore be put to the expence of another trial, where there was no mistake of the Judge or jury : the second trial therefore must be on payment of coats by the Plaintiff ; I say nothing of the return of premium, because it depends on the former question, whether the point may ever arise ; but the words of this policy are very different from the words of some on which the Courts have decided. Let all the circumstances proved on the former trial on which there was no dispute, the subscription of the policy, interest, and capture, and a copy of the licence he admitted. Rule absolute for a new trial on payment of costs. BRANNING V. PATTERSON. June 4, 1812. Notice must be given to the Defendant of the Protbonotaries appointment to compute principal and interest on a bill of exchange. This was an action upon a bill of exchange, in which, after judgment bad been obtained, an order was procured to refer it to the prothonotary, to compute principal and interest ; and the amount being computed, the costs were also taxed, and the Defendant taken in execution. Best Serjt. obtained a rule nisi to set aside the proceedings for an irregularity, wbich consisted in omitting to give notice to the Defendant of the appointment of a day to compute the principal and interest. Vaughan Serjt. now shewed cause against the rule, and Per Curiam. This proceeding of a reference to the prothonotary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
IVY Technology Ltd v Mr Barry Martin
...fact of life (such that both parties can reasonably be expected to be aware of and engaged in it). [ Vernon v Keys (1810) 12 East 632; (1812) 4 Taunt 488.] However, where the line should be drawn in imposing liability is not always clear. [Thus in Haygarth v Wearing (1872) L.R. 12 Eq 320 a ......
-
Harman v Lasbrey
...collude with the person who is, ib. See likewise Vernon v. Keys, 12 East, 632, in which case the judgment waa affirmed on writ of error. 4 Taunt. 488. See likewise Eyre v. Duns/ord, 1 East, 318 ; Tapp v. Lee, 3 B. and P. 367 ; Hamar v. Alexander, 2 N. R. 241 , Hutchinson v. Bellt \ Taunt. 5......
-
Green v Button
...cannot allege their non-delivery as a ground of legal damage. To apply the judgment of Lord Ellenborough in Pernon v. Keys (12 East, 636; 4 Taunt. 488), "he has not been deprived by deceitful means of any benefit which the law entitled him to demand or expect." In Axhley v. Harri-[714]-.Wi ......