The Belefast Harbour Commissioners v Samuel Lawther and The Marine Investment Company Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 02 June 1865
• Date: 02 June 1865
• Court: High Court of Chancery (Ireland)

Chancery.

THE BELEFAST HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS

and

SAMUEL LAWTHER And THE MARINE INVESTMENT COMPANY (Limited).

Orr v. DickinsonENR Johns. 1.

Hogg v. SnaithENR 1 Taunt. 347.

Hibblewhite v. M'MorineENR 6 M. & W. 200.

De Bouchout v. Goldsmid 5 Ves. 210.

Harrison v. Nettleship 2 Myl. & K. 423.

Farebrother v. Welchman 3 Dr. 122.

Simpson v. Lord Howden 3 Myl. & Cr. 108.

Bateman v. Willoe 1 Sch. & Lef. 201.

Todd v. Jeffries 7 A. & E. 523.

Earl of Oxford's case 1 Wh. & Tud. L. C. 521, in notis.

YoungENR 4 C. B. 371.

Tufton v. Harding 29 Law Jour., Ch. 225.

Joynes v. Collinson 2 D. & L. 449.

Colyer v. Speer 2 Br. & Bing. 67.

The Corporation of Belfast v. Murphy 3 Ir. Jur., N. S. 439.

Bentley v. Hastings 6 Ir. Law Rep. 170.

Kemp v. Clark 12 Q. B. 647.

Gardner v. CazenoveENR 1 H. & N. 423.

Kerswill v. Bishop 2 Cr. & Jer. 529.

Hudson v. RevettENR 5 Bing. 368,

Sheffield and Manchester Railway Co. WoodcockENR 7 M. & W. 574.

Sanders v. Vanzeller 4 Q. B. 260.

Stronghill v. Anstey 1 De G., M'N. & G. 635.

Dickenson v. KitchenENR 8 El. & Bl. 790.

Burnet v. AndersonENR 1 Mer. 405.

Crawshaw v. Thornton 3 M. & Cr. 1.

Horton v. Earl of DevonENR 4 Exch. 497.

Haythorn v. Bush 2 Cr & Mee. 689.

Clarke v. LordUNK 2 Dowl. P. C. 227.

Cook v. Rosslyn 28 Law Jour., Ch. 833.

Mathews v. Gibbs 30 Law Jour., Q. B. 55.

Crawford v. FisherENR 1 Hare, 436.

Small v. MoatesENR 9 Bing. 574.

West v. StewardENR 13 M. & W. 474.

Buller v. Plunkett 30 Law Jour., Ch. 641.

Alexander v. Simms 5 De G., M'N. & G. 57.

Lickbarrow v. MasonUNK 1 Sm. L. C. 681.

Morgan v. MarsacENR 2 Mer. 111.

Lindsay v. GibbsENR 22 Beav. 522.

Cato v. IrvineENR 5 De G. & Sm. 210.

Ex parte Carlon 3 Mont. & Ayr. 328.

Ex parte Living 2 Mont & Ayr. 223.

Langton v. HortonENR 5 Beav. 9.

Ward v. BeckENR 13 C. B., N. S. 1.

Cocharane v. O'BrienUNK 8 Ir. Eq. Rep. 241.

Best v. Hayes 32 Law Jour., Exch. 129.

Gumm v. TyrieENR 4 B. & S. 680.

St. John's College v. ToddingtonENR 1 Burr. 158.

Evans v. Bremridge 8 De G. M'N. & G. 100.

Cochrane v. O'BrienUNK 8 Ir. Eq. Rep. 241.

The East India Company v. Edwards 18 Ves. 376.

Cato v. IrvingENR 5 De G. & Sm. 224.

Gumm v. Tyrie 4 B. & Sm. 680.

Dobbyn v. ComerfordUNK 10 Ir. Ch. Rep. 327.

Mason v. HamiltonENR 5 Sim. 19.

Dowson v. HardcastleENR 2 Cox Ch. Cas. 278.

Edensor v. RobertsENR 2 Cox Ch. Cas. 280.

Lawless v. Shaw 3 Law Rec., N. S. 169.

Meux v. BellENR 1 Hare, 73.

Boyd v. BeltonUNK 8 Ir. Eq. Rep. 125.

54 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1865. Chancery. THE BELFAST HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS SAMUEL LAWTHER And THE MARINE INVESTMENT COMPANY (Limited). April 24, 25, 26, 27. June 2. (In Chancery.) L., the agent THIS was a cause petition presented by the Belfast Harbour Com at B. for the owner of a ship missioners against the respondents Samuel Lawther and the Marine chartered to that port, had Investment Company (limited), praying that the respondents should acquired equi table charges set forth their respective claims in respect of certain timber and on the freight an settle an lead and cargo ; and deals ; and that they might be decreed to inter lead and was also agent adjust their several demands between themselves; and that it might for the char- terers and con signees. On the arrival of the vessel at B., possession was taken by L. ; and the cargo was landed and stored with the B. Harbour Commissioners, wharfingers, in L.'s name. After the landing of the cargo, the M. I. Company, who claimed to be assignees of the ship under a bill of sale, which purported to be an absolute assignment, but was in reality a mortgage, served a notice on the B. Harbour Commissioners (expressed to be a notice under the 68th section of the Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act 1862), cautioning them against allowing the cargo to be removed from their wharves or warehouses until the lien for freight claimed by the M. I, Company was discharged. The B. Harbour Commissioners having thereupon refused to deliver up any portion of the cargo to L., an action of trover and detinue was brought against them by L. in the Court of Common Pleas. An application for an interpleader order, under the 9 & 10 Vic., c. 64, was made to that Court by the B. Harbour Commissioners, and a summoning order granted ; but on a motion to show cause, the Court differing in opinion, no rule was made on the motion. In an interpleader suit, instituted by the B. Harbour Commissioners against L. and the M. I. Company Held, that the Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act 1862 applies only to the case of a lien for freight claimed by the shipowner against the owner of the cargo; and that the present case, being one of conflicting claims as to the ownership of the freight, between the mortgagor and the mortagee of the vessel, was not within the provisions of that Act. And Held, that the case was properly the subject of an interpleader suit, and that the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery was not affected by the decision of the Court of Common Pleas. Before the mortgagee of a ship obtained possession, and after the arrival of the vessel in port, the agent of the owner, who was also the agent for the charterers and consignees, made an arrangement with the charterers and consignees, by which the freight was to be discharged by a sale by him of a portion of the cargo, instead of being paid in the manner provided by the charter-party; and the cargo was landed and stored with wharfingers upon this arrangement. Held, that the mortgagee's lien for freight was at an end. Where a portion of the cargo of a vessel is shipped on account of the owner,, a mortgagee who takes possession under his mortgage cannot claim freight with respect to that portion. CHANCERY REPORTS. 55 be ascertained, in such manner as the Court might think fit, to which of the respondents the said timber and deals ought to be delivered, or how otherwise the same should be disposed of ; and that the said Samuel Lawther and his agents might be restrained, by the order and injunction of the Court, from prosecuting an action at law, commenced by him against the petitioners in the * Court of Common Pleas ; and that the Marine Investment ComÂpany (limited), and their agents, might, in like manner, be restrained from instituting or prosecuting any other action at law, or suit in equity, against the petitioners, touching the said timber and deals. The case first came before the Court, on the 21st and 22d of December 1864, upon a motion for an injunction until the hearing of the cause, which was then granted by the LORD CHANCELLOR. [Supra, vol. 16, p. 34.] An order was subsequently made, allowing Samuel Lawther to obtain possession of the timber and deals in dispute, upon the terms of paying into Court a sum sufficient to satisfy the amount of the claim made by the Marine Investment Company (limited). The facts of the case are fully stated in the judgment of the LORD CHANCELLOR. * Mr. Brewster, and Mr. Chatterton (with whom was Mr. W. Argument. Andrews), cited Orr v. Dickinson (a); Hogg v. Snaith(b); HibÂblewhite v. III'Morine (c); De Bouchout v. Goldsmid (d). Mr. Macdonogh, and Mr. Jellett (with whom was Mr. Andrew M Porter), referred to Maddock's Ch. Pr., 3rd ed., p. 249 ; Simmons on Interpleader, p. 9 ; Harrison v. Nettleship (e); Fare-brother v. Welchman (f); Simpson v. Lord Howden (g); Bateman v. Willoe (h); 2 Arch. Pr., 11th ed., p. 1426 ; Todd v. Jeffries (i); Earl of Oxford's case (k); Watson on Sherffs, p. 193; Mutton v. (a) Johns. 1. (a) 6 M. & W. 200. (e) 2 Myl. & K. 423. (g) 3 Myl. & Cr. 108. (i) 7 A. & E. 523. (b) 1 Taunt. 347. (d) 5 Ves. 210. (.0 3 Dr. 122. (h) 1 Sch. & Lef. 201. (A)' 1 Wh. & Tud. L. C. 521.:n nods. 56 CHANCERY REPORTS. Young (a); Tufton v. Harding (b); Joynes v. Collinson (c); Colyer v. Speer (d); The Corporation of Belfast v. Murphy (e); Bentley v. Hastings (f); Kemp v. Clark (g); Gardner v. CazeÂnove (h); Kerswill v. Bishop (i); Maude and Pollock on Shipping, p. 263 ; 8 & 9 Vic., c. 91, s. 5 1 ; 25 & 26 Vic., c. 63; Hudson v. Revett (k); Sheffield and Manchester Railway Co. v. Woodcock (1); Sanders v. Vanzeller (m); 1 Sugden on Powers, p. 413 ; Strong-hill v. Ansley (n); Dickenson v. Kitchen (o); Burnet v. AnderÂson (p); Crawskaw v. Thornton (q); Horton v. Earl of Devon (0; Haythorn v. Bush (s); Clarke v. Lord (t): Cook v. Rosslyn (u); Mathews v. Gibbs (v) ; Crawford v. Fisher (w) ; Small v. Moates (x); West v. Steward (y); Buller v. Plunkett (z): AlexÂander v. Simms (aa); Lickbarrow v. Mason (bb); Morgan v. Marsac (cc); .r.Lachlan's Shipping, p. 39 ; 17 & 18 Vic., c. 104, s. 70. The Solicitor-General (Sullivan), and Mr. Falkiner (with whom was Mr. Harrison), for Samuel Lawther, referred to Lindsay v. Gibbs (dd); Cato v. Irvine (ee); Ex parte Carlon (ff); Ex parte Living (gg); Langton v. Horton (hh); Ward v. Beck (ii); Bur (a) 4 C. B. 371. (c) 2 D. & L. 449. (e) 3 Ir. Jur., N. S. 439. (g) 12 Q. B. 647. (i) 2 Cr. & Jer. 529. (1) 7 K. & W. 574. (n) 1 De G., M`N. & G. 635. (p) 1 Mer. 405. (r) 4 Exch. 497. (t) 2 Dowl. P. C. 227. (v) 30 Law Jour., Q. B. 55. (a) 9 Bing. 574. (z) 30 Law Jour., Ch. 641. (bb) 1 Sm. L. C. 681; (dd) 22 Beay. 522. 09 3 Mont. & Ayr. 328. (hk) 5 Beal& 9. (b) 29 Law Jour., Ch. 225. (d) 2 Br. & Bing. 67. 0) 6 Ir. Law Rep. 170. (h) 1 H. & N. 423. (k) .5 Bing. 368, (m) 4 Q. B. 260. (o) 8 El. & BL 790. (q) 3 M. & Cr. 1. (s) 2 Cr. & Mee. 689. (u) 28 Law Jour., Ch. 833. (w) 1 Hare, 436. (y) 14 M. & W. 474. (aa) 5 De G., 21`N. & G. 57. (cc) 2 Mer. 111. (ee) 5 De G. & Sm. 210. (gg) 2 Mont. & Ayr. 223. (ii) 13 C. B., N. S. 1. CHANCERY REPORTS. 57 rough's 8f Gresson's Eq. Plead., p. 596; Cochrane v. O'Brien (a); 1865. Chancery. Best v. Hayes (b); Gumm v. Tyre (c). Cur. adv vltu. BELFAST HARBOUR The LORD CHANCELLOR. COMMRS. This case, which was before the Court last Term, involves a very LAWTHER. great number of facts-certainly not free from complication-and a June 2. vast number of questions of law, which have...