Woodrop Sims
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 November 1815 |
| Date | 21 November 1815 |
| Court | High Court of Admiralty |
English Reports Citation: 165 E.R. 1422
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY
Discussed. Hay v. Le Neve. 1824, 2 Shaw, Sc. Ap. Cas. 325, and see the "Swandland1855, 2 Sp. REe and Adm. 110 n, Referred to, Stoomeaart Maatschappy Nederland v. Pemsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. 1882, 7A C. 818;
[83] " WooDROP-SiMS "-(Jones). November 21, 1815 -Rules fo* fixing or apportioning the loss occasioned by two vessels running foul of each other. [Discussed, Hay v. Le Neve, 1824, 2 Shaw, Sc. Ap. Gas. 395, and see The " Swaydand" 1855, 2 Sp. Ecc. and Adm. 110 n. Referred to, Stoomvaart Maatschappy Nederktnd v. Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., 1882, 7 A. C. 818 ; ex parte Lynch, 1 Madd. 15. 2DODS. 84. THE " WOOUHOP-S1MS " 1423 The " Drumlanrig" [1910] P. 263 ; The " Seacotnbe," [1912] P. 65. Approved, Owners of S.S. " Devonshire " v Owners of Barge ' Leslie," [1912] A. C. 644.] (Instance Court.) This was a cause of damage at the instance of Thomas Potts and George Taylor, the owners of the brig " Industry," against the above ship the " Woodrop-Sims," her tackle, &c. On the part of the complainants, it was stated-That the '' Industry," being a brig of the burden of eighty-mne tons, sailed on the 12th of May from Sunderland with a cargo of coals for some port in the west of England, and that about two o'clock in the morning of the 19th of May, being off the South Foreland which bore west-south-west, distant about a mile and a half, with the wind about west-north-west, and steering a south-west course close by the wind, and on the starboard tack, the " Woodrop-Sims " was observed about three hundred yards distant running to the north-east with a free wind. That the master and crew of the brig perceiving that the ship continued her course, and that if it was not altered she would come direct upon them, called out several times as loud as possible, but no notice was taken of their hailing, and the " Woodrop-Sims " came on board the brig and stove in her larboard stde, and she sunk almost immediately, the crew of the brig having just time to save themselves on board the " Woodrop-Sims." That the loss of the " Industry " and her cargo was [84] occasioned by the negligence or want of skill of the master and crew of the " Woodrop-Sims," and by the want of a good look-out on board that ship On the other side, it was stated-That the " Woodrop-Sims," being an American vessel of the burden of five hundred and twenty tons, sailed from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miom 1 Ltd and Another v SEA Echo ENE (No 2)
...in Admiralty the rule was that "the loss must be apportioned between them as having been occasioned by the fault of both of them"; see the Woodrop-Sims (1815) 2 Dodson 83 at p.85 per Lord Stowell and Cayzer, Irvine v Carron Company (1884) 9 LR App.Cas. 873 at pp.880–881 per Lord Blackburn.)......
-
The Stormvart Maatschappy Nederland v The Peninsular and Oriental Company; The Voorwarts; The Khedive
...Lords Blackburn, Watson, and Bramwell The Stoomvaart Maatschappy v. The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company The WoodropENR 2 Dod. 83 De Vaux v. Salvador 4 Ad. & Ell. 420 The SeringapatamENR 3 W. Rob. 38 The WashingtonUNK 5 Jur. 1067 The Tecla CarmenENR Lush 79 Harriett 1 Mar. L......
-
The "Milan."
...of ship only, or else owners of ship and cargo, where it may well be that ship and cargo were owned by the same parties ; Woodrop-Stms (2 Dods. 83) ; Hay v Le Neve (2 Shaw's Scotch Appeals, p 395), and the case of The " Petersfield," there quoted (p 403) Thus in Hay v Le Neve, Lord Gifford'......
-
The Devonshire
...Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. TurnerDID=ASPM 7 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 369 (1893) 69 L. T. Rep. 630 (1893) A: C. 468 The Woodropp SimsENR 2 Dods. 83 The MilanENR Lush. 388 Thorogood v. BryanENR 8 C. B. 115 The BerninaDID=ASPMELR 6 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 257 (1888) 58 L. T. Rep. 423 13 App. Cas. ......