Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

1836.

v.

DARLING.

agent of Heathorn? The expression in his affidavit HEATHORN is, that at the time of the arrival of the ship at St. Helena, Gideon was not known to him to be such accredited agent; the expression runs through the affidavits of the respondent's witnesses. Solomon's interview with Marshall was not till the day after the arrival of the ship; that is the period from whence the absence of such knowledge should be proved; but in order to support the bond they must go further, and show that the owner had no credit. Marshall's affidavit negatives such an assumption; it is nowhere contradicted. No one swears that Gideon was not fully prepared to advance on the personal credit of Marshall. Moss says only that he did not know Gideon was the accredited agent of Heathorn. Gideon himself says he applied personally, and offered to supply the necessary stores. It would be impossible to support this as a bottomry transaction, without sending to inquire whether the stores were advanced on the credit of the owner. That, however, is unnecessary, for it appears, on their own showing, to have been an advance on personal credit. That is fatal to such a bond.

The Alexander (a), The Sydney

Cove (b), in The Augusta (c), Lord Stowell says, Hypothecation bonds are founded on the security of the ship and freight; and according to the law of this country, are resorted to only where there is a failure of personal security, in order to enable the master to supply himself, in a foreign port, with necessaries, which he would otherwise be unable to procure from that necessity they spring, and on the ground of that necessity alone are they supported."

(a) 1 Dorlson, 278. (b) 2 Dodson, 1.

(c) 1 Dodson, 283. 286-7.

The supplies were not such as the ship stood in absolute need of, and therefore the agent was not justified in taking a bottomry bond. All the authorities concur that the supplies must be necessary supplies. It appears by the affidavit of Darling, that he took the bond, because the ship was in a leaky state, yet knowing the ship to be in such a state he gives the full value for the bond; is that a credible state of things?

The King's Advocate (Sir John Dodson) and
Dr. Curteis, for the Respondent.

It is clear that the vessel was in a state of necessity
when she entered the port of St. Helena. It is no-
where stated that Gideon was the accredited agent of
the ship; it rests upon the absence of a contrary state-
ment; how then could Marshall be aware of such fact?
No supplies could be obtained but on a bottomry
bond, the necessity of the ship justified the resort to
such a security. The stores supplied were such as the
vessel had immediate need of; they were for the most
part sea stores. In The Duke of Bedford(a), the Judge
of the Admiralty Court (Sir Christopher Robinson),
says, "With respect to sea stores, I see no reason for
distinguishing them from any other supplies that may
be necessary for the service of the ship: "pour les
depens de la nef, s'il y a besoin de victuailler,"
"in
causâ necessitatis pro servandâ nave et bonis," accord-
ing to the general definition given of these bonds by
writers on maritime law. Solomon's ignorance of

Gideon being the accredited agent, if he were such, is an honest ignorance, and not disproved by any evidence on the other side. As to the stores being sup(a) 2 Hagg. Adm. Repts. 301.

1836.

HEATHORN

v.

DARLING.

v.

1836. plied on a personal credit, there is [no pretence for HEATHORN such an assumption. A bottomry bond may be valid though a bill of exchange were given at the same time by way of collateral security (a). The resistance of the bond is an unrighteous act; the Court below held it valid, and condemned the appellant in costs.

Lord LYNDHURST :

We do not think this Bond can be upheld. The question is, whether Solomon (for the Respondent has no better right than he had) used due diligence to ascertain if Marshall, the master, could procure the necessary supplies without resorting to a bottomry bond. It appears to us that he was bound in this case to inquire if any person was willing to supply the goods, upon personal credit; he had no right to fix the owner with a Bottomry Bond until he had made such inquiries, and had good reason to believe its absolute, and therefore its legal necessity. If he knew that Marshall might obtain the necessary supplies on the personal credit of the owner, there is an end to the case; and having the means of knowing that fact, we think he is bound to show that he exercised a reasonable diligence to ascertain it: we do not think from the evidence in this case that he did use such diligence, and we are therefore of opinion that the judgment below must be reversed.

(a) 1 Dodson, 466,

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF
CHANCERY OF JAMAICA.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

JAMES LEWIS DAVY, JOHN DAVY, and

JOHN COLEY, Executors of the lastRespondents.*
Will of JAMES DAVY, deceased -

15 June

1836.

The commisper cent. given by the the Jamaica Act

sion of 61.

24 Geo. 2, c. 19

trustees,

ON the 10th January 1831, the appellants, Stephen Denton and Charles Gatfield, since deceased, filed their bill in the Court of Chancery of Jamaica against the above-named respondents. The complainants described themselves as Stephen Denton, late of parish of Manchester, in the island of Jamaica, but to agents, then of England, and Charles Gatfield, of England, guardians, Esqrs., the surviving trustees, and two of the executors executors, under the last will and testament of Henry Palmer, management ' and disposal late of the said island of Jamaica, Esq., deceased, and as suing by the above-named appellant, Duncan bertson, of the said island, their attorney in that behalf.

• Present: The Vice-Chancellor, Mr. Baron Parke, Mr. Bosanquet, and the Chief Judge of the Court of Bankruptcy.

of the rents Ro- of an estate,

and profits

being in the

nature of a

remuneration for the trouble and

Justice responsi

bility of conducting the business of a

merchant on the island, is payable only to persons actually resident on the island, and capable and willing to act in the trusts of the estate; and the commission of 57. per cent. given by the same Act for receiving and remitting monies can only be claimed where the receipts or payments are actually made on the island.

Semble. Where a party is made a co-plaintiff, having no interest in one of the objects sought by his co-plaintiff, and the bill is sustainable only in respect of that object, it must be dismissed.

1836.

DENTON

v.

DAVY.

The bill stated that Henry Palmer was, at the time of making and publishing his last will and testament, and at the time of his death, seised and possessed of very considerable real estate and slaves, and was also possessed of considerable personal estate and effects in Jamaica; and being so seised and possessed, made and published his last will and testament in writing, executed and attested as by law required, for rendering valid and effectual devises of real estate and slaves, bearing date the 6th day of August 1814; and thereby he willed and directed that all his just debts, funeral expences, and the expences attending the execution of that his will, should be fully paid and satisfied by his executors thereinafter named, as soon as possible after his decease, to the payment whereof he thereby subjected, charged and made liable all his estate and after full payment and satisfaction thereof, he gave and bequeathed certain annuities and legacies therein particularly specified, to the payment of all which legacies, annuities, and bequests he thereby subjected, charged and made liable all his estate, both real and personal: and as to all the rest, residue and remainder of his estate, both real and personal, or of what nature or kind soever the same then was or thereafter should or might be, or wheresoever situate at the time of his decease, in possession, reversion, remainder or expectancy, or of which he might be possessed and seised and entitled unto, he gave, devised and bequeathed the same, and every part and parcel thereof, unto his friends Charles Gatfield the elder, of Newgate-street, in the city of London, in the kingdom of Great Britain, Esquire, and Stephen Denton and James Davy, both of the parish of St. Elizabeth, in the county and island aforesaid, Esquires

« AnteriorContinua »