Wilson v Wilson [VC Malins' Court]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 March 1872 |
| Date | 12 March 1872 |
| Court | Vice-Chancellor's Court |
V. C. Malins' Court
The Vice-Chancellor
Wilson v. Wilson
Brown v. Tanner L. Rep. 3 Ch. App. 597 18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 624 3 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 94
Rusden v. PopeENR L. Rep. 3 Ex. 269 18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 651 3 Mar. Law Cas. O. S. 91
Kerswill v. Bishop 2 C. &. J. 529
Lindsay v. GibbsENR 22 Beav. 522
Mortgage of ship Right to freight Priority
Lindsay v. Gibbs (22 Beav. 522), observed upon.
MARITIME LAW CASES. 265 Priv. Co.] Wilson v. Wilson. [V. C. M. V. C. MALINES' COURT. Eeportsd by 0.1. T Coosts snd T. H. Oabsoh, Esqws., Tuesday, March 12,1872. Witjsoh t. Wusosr. Mortgage of ship - Might to freight - Priority - Notice A, mortgaged a ship, then on her outward voyage, to S., and the mortgage was duly registered. Three days before the mortgage of the ship, A, mortgaged the homeward freight to 0., hit 0. omitted to give notice of auch mortgage to B. Held, tl'M B. wat entitled to the homeward freight. Lindsay v. Gibba (22 Beav. 522), observed upon. Is May 1866, Joseph Wilson, a merchant in Liver-poo!, was the sole owner of a ship named the Keniiworth, then on a voyage from Liverpool to Calcutta, and in the course of business he had dealings with the Union Bank of Liverpool. On the 15th May 1866 he osecnted to the bank a mortgage of the Kenibnorth, in the statutory form, as security for advances, and this mortgage was duly registered on the 18th. On the same 15-ih May the plaintiff, Mary Wilson, wb j was the mother of Joseph Wilsoa, at hie reques, executed to the bank, as a farther or collateral security, a mortgage of certain shares which she held in another ship named the Refuge. On the 12th May 1866, threo daj s before the mortgage of the Kenttworth, Joseph Wilson executed a deed of assignment, by whioh; in consideration of his mother granting the mor gage to the bank of her shares in the Refuge, he assigned to 266 MARITIME LAW CASES. V. C. M.] Wilson v. Wilson. [V. C. M. her all his right and interest in the freight, andearnings of tho Kenilworth on her voyage from Liverpool to Calcutta, and also in ail succeeding or intormodialio voyages. On tho arrival of the Kenilworlh at Marseilles, which was her port of destination on hor return voyage from Calcutta, tho captain received instructions from tho plaintiff to dispose of isha cargo and receive the freight oh hor behalf, br.t tho bank, immediately on tho ship's arrival, by their agent, put a lien on the ship and freight, and subsequently received payment of the freight upon an understanding that they should account for it to tho plaintiff. The question, in this suit was whother the freight earned by tho Kenilworth on hor homeward voyage from Calcutta to Marseilles belonged to the plaintiff under the above-men-tioneddeed of assignment, or to the bank under thuir suortgftge. Ife did npt appear from the evidence that any formal notice of the assignment was given by the plaintiff to the bank prior to their mortgage. Joseph Wilson, however, stated that on tho 16th, tho day after the mortgage, he mentioned to the defendaut, James Wilson, the manager of the bank, that he had a-ready mortgaged the freight; hut James Wilson positively denied that either .he or the bank had had any notice whatever of the assignment to tho plaintiff. In June 1806, Joseph Wilson became insolvent, and executed a deed for the benefit of his creditors, Gl - .; Q.C aiwi Wintle, for the plaintiff, contended hat she was entitled to tfeo homeward freight, and cited Douglas?. Russell, 4 Sim. 524; Holroyd v, Marshall, 10 H. of L. Caa. 191; Lindsay v. Oibbs, 22 Beav. 522; Brown v. Tanner, L. Bap. 3 Ch. App. 597; 18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 624; 3 Mar. Law Caa. 6. S. 04; Reeve v. Whitmore, 9 L. T. Bep. N. S. 311; 12 W. B. 113; Busden v. Pope, L. Kep. 3 Ex. 269 ; 18 L. T, Bop. N. S. 851, 3 Mar. Law Coa. O. S. 91; Splidt v. Bowhs, 10 East. 279; Yatcs v. Cox, 17 W. B. 20; Boss v. HopMnson, 18 W. B. 725: Wehster v. Webster, 31 Beav. 393; 6L.T, Rep, N.-S.- Feltham v. Claris, 1 De G.&Sra. 307. Cotton, Q.C. and Gunning Moore, for the bank, contended that their- mortgage carried with it the right to the freight, and that they were in the position of mortgagees without notice. They cited, Kemp v. Clark, 12 Q. B. 647. Glasse, in reply. The _ViCE-OHANCELiOK. - The point which I have to decide is probably one of considerable importance on a point of mercantile law, but I cannot say that I feel much doubt about it. In the year 2866 Mary Wilson, a widow lady of Liverpool, had a son Joseph Wilson, who traded sw a merchant in that town. He had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Benwell Tower
...S. 91 18 L. T. Rep. 651 L. Rep. 3 Ex. 269 Beynon v. GoddenDID=ASPM 4 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 10 3 Ex. Div. 263 Wilson v. WilsonDID=ASPM 1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 265 26 L. T. Rep. 346 L. Rep. 14 Eq. 32 Liverpool Marine Credit Company v. WilsonDID=ASPM 1 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 325 26 L. T. Rep. 717 L. Rep......