Wedding Presents
| Published date | 01 July 1960 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1960.tb00622.x |
| Date | 01 July 1960 |
440
THE
MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
VOL.
WI
down would appear uncertain,
for
although Lord Russell of
Killowen
C.J.
referred in
Saxon
Ship
Co.
Ltd. v.
Union
S.S.
Co.
Ltd.15 to “the current
of
authorities,” he did not cite them by
name and they are not to be found elsewhere in the reports of the
case. Perhaps he had in mind
Lilly
Q
Co.
v.
D.
M.
Stevenson
Q
CO.,’~
which was decided
a
few years earlier.
In
the United States
the rule seems first to have been laid down in a case of
1882
and
in another in the next year.lS
In
a later case in
1926
the principle
was stated by the Circuit Court of
appeal^,'^
Fourth Circuit, in the
following way
zO:
“The rule
is
that, after demurrage has com-
menced to run,
it
will
not be suspended by the occurrence of an
event within the exceptions of the loading clause.
”
Presumably
therefore
if
the issue in
Union
of India
V.
Compania Naviera
AeoEus
S.A.
had arisen
in
a court in the United States, the case
would have been decided in the same way.
E.
R.
HARDY-IVAMY.
WEDDING
PRESENTS
IT
is a pity that most reports of family disputes do not pay as much
attention to the actual facts of the cases as
to
the “matters
of principle
”
they deal with. Even the courts themselves, by only
verbalising the minimum number of facts
on
which to base their
decisions, frequently help to obscure the actual issues involved and
present the outward appearance at least of deciding the cases with-
out reference to the innumerable unstated factors involved.
Samson
v.
Samson
is one such case. We learn from the reports that after
Mrs.
Samson
had been deserted by her husband she obtained a
maintenance order against him and went back to live with her
mother and father. For good measure, she took with her their child
and a large number of the gifts they had received
on
their marriage
less than two years before. Her husband had already taken with
him the rest of the presents and was holding the balance of the
cash gifts in his bank account.
Mrs.
Samson brought an action to
sort out the ownership
of
the various items. The Registrar who
heard it (and who was upheld by the Court of Appeal) apportioned
some
of
the gifts to the wife, some to the husband, and found the
wife entitIed to
2185
of the money in the husband’s bank-all
on
the basis that the wife was entitled only to those gifts coming from
her side of the family and the husband to those from his.
15
Supra.
16
Supra.
17
Lindsay, Gracie
d?
Co.
v.
Cusltnano
(1882) 12
F.
503
(Circuit
Court,
Eastern
18
The
Olu
(1883) 19
F.
459
(Circuit Court, Eastern District
of
Louisiana).
19
BerwinkWhite Coal Mining
Co.
v.
Solleveld, Van Der Meer
and
T.
H.
Van
20
At
p.
82.
District of Louirriana).
Hatturn’s Stoomvaart Maatschappij
(1926)
11
F.
2d 80.
1
[1960]
1
All
E.R.
653;
[1960]
1
W.L.R.
190.
To continue reading
Request your trial