Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

1773.

OLHSEN

against DRUMMOND.

tioned: And the said D. further says, that the said P. wilfully, wrongfully, and without any reasonable or probable cause whatsoever, kept and detained the said ship at the said island of St. Lucia for the space of five months and upwards, that is to say, until and upon the 17th January, 1783, after her said arrival there, and for a much longer time than was necessary for the purposes of unloading her outward bound cargo, and putting the said ship in a fit and proper condition for sailing towards the islands of Dominica, Grenada, or St. Christopher's, or any or either of them in the said charterparty mentioned, before he set sail and proceeded with the said ship to the said island of Dominica, as in the said declaration mentioned; by reason of all which said wilful and unnecessary delays and detentions of the said ship by the said P., and for no other cause whatever, the said freighters, or their agents, correspondents, and assigns, at either or any of the said islands of Dominica, Grenada, or St. Christopher's, were wholly disabled and prevented from procuring or loading or sending alongside of the said ship, any homeward bound cargo of sugar, coffee, cotton, or other produce, according to the said charterparty; and this, &c.

Replication to first plea: that true it is that the said ship in the said charterparty mentioned did not unload her outward bound cargo at the island of St. Thomas, as the said D. has in that plea alleged, but for replication in this behalf, the said P. says, that before and at the time of the making of the said charterparty in the said declaration mentioned, and always afterwards, it was intended by the said P. that the said ship should unload her said outward bound cargo at the said island of St. Lucia in the said declaration mentioned, if she should be able to go into the same, and not at the said island of St. Thomas, unless the

said ship should, by any accident, be prevented from going into the said island of St. Lucia, to wit, at &c. aforesaid, whereof the said D., before and at the time of the making of the said charterparty, to wit, on the 12th April, 1782, at &c. aforesaid, had notice; and the said P. in fact further says, that the said ship, not being prevented by any accident from going into the said island of St. Lucia, did afterwards, to wit, on the 18th June, 1782, there arrive, and afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year last aforesaid, there unload her said outward bound cargo, to wit, at the island of St. Lucia aforesaid, before she proceeded to the said island of Dominica, to wit, at &c. aforesaid; and this, &c. Replication to second plea, protesting that the said pleas to the matters therein contained, are not sufficient in law to bar him the said P. from having and maintaining his said action thereof against the said D., to which said plea, in manner and form as the same is above made, the said P. is under no necessity, nor is he bound by the law of the land, to answer for replication; nevertheless in this behalf the said P. says, that he did not wilfully keep and detain the said 'ship at the island of St. Lucia after her arrival there, for much longer time than was necessary for the purposes of unloading her outward bound cargo, and putting the said ship in a fit and proper condition for her voyage for Dominica, as described in the said charterparty, before he proceeded with the said ship to the island of Dominica, in manner and form as the said D. hath in that plea above alleged; and this, &c.

Demurrer to these replications, and joinder in de

murrer.

Wood, for defendant. The objection the plaintiff will make is, that the 2d plea is not an answer to the action; but this cannot be so. It was the intention

1773.

OLISEN

against DRUMMOND.

1773.

OLHSEN against DRUMMOND.

of the parties, that the ship should unload her cargo at St. Thomas; and this was a condition precedent to the charterparty taking effect. The time of her getting to Dominica must have depended on the finishing of the outward bound voyage. She might as well have gone to the East Indies before she went to Dominica, if this was not a condition precedent. The crop at Dominica must be loaded so as to be brought home by a particular time. The plaintiff might have lost his freight for staying so long before he came to Dominica. Bulst. 169. The words here operate as a condition precedent, and the plaintiff has no ground of action.

SED PER CURIAM. This is no condition precedent. But at all events, if the ship had not arrived in time, the defendant should have objected to load; instead of which, he or his agents take to the ship; they declare that the ship shall load at Dominica; they keep her on demurrage; therefore they cannot now make the objection.

Judgment for plaintiff.

[blocks in formation]

N an action on the case against a com-
mon carrier, for not safely carrying a
passenger, defendant cannot plead in
abatement the nonjoinder of a co-proprie-
tor. Ansell v. Waterhouse.
2. The court will not permit a plea in abate-
ment to be amended, but plaintiff will be
allowed to withdraw a demurrer to such
plea, and reply. Atkinson v.
gent. one, &c.

5

3. Where defendant pleads in abatement, he
must be prepared to prove his plea prompt-
ly; and a strong case must be made out
before the court will postpone the time, in
order to enable the defendant to procure
the evidence of witnesses. Wade v. Bir-
mingham.
5

4. The defendant being arrested by a wrong
name, informed the plaintiff's attorney of
the error, and afterwards, before the de-
claration was delivered, pleaded in abate-
ment; next day plaintiff declared in the
defendant's right name, and the latter
having omitted to plead de novo, the plain-
tiff signed judgment as for want of a plea;
held that the judgment was regularly
signed. Douglas v. Green.

7

5. Pleas in abatement cannot be filed before
defendant has appeared, there being no
distinction in this respect between pleas in
abatement and pleas in bar; and there-
fore judgment may be signed for want of
a plea, though plca in abatement has been
filed, if defendant has not appeared. Wake-
field v. Marden.

8

ACCIDENT.

See MASTER AND SERVANT, 2.

If, in the prosecution of a lawful act, an
injury, purely accidental, ensue, no action
can be supported for an injury arising from
such accident. Davies v. Saunders and
others.
Page 639

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

ADMINISTRATION.

See ADMINISTRATOR.

ADMINISTRATOR.

Where defendant, acting under a power attorney from plaintiff, took out administration at Bengal to the estate of a deceased debtor by bond to plaintiff, and received monies under the administration; held that he could not retain as against the plaintiff, on the ground of a subsequent administration obtained by other creditors in this country. Farrington v. Clarke. Page 429

ADMIRALTY (COURT OF).

See PROHIBITION, 1.

ADMISSION.

See EVIDENCE, 1. SPECIAL CASE, 1.

AFFIDAVIT.

See BAIL. EJECTMENT. ATTORNEY, 5, 6. BAIL, 18, 46, 69. CERTIORARI, 1. CRIMINAL INFORMATION, 1. INQUIRY, 1. TRIAL, 1. ANNUITY, 2.

1. There must be a distinct and separate stamp for each distinct affidavit, before the same can be used or read. Atkinson v. Reynolds. 14

2. Though affidavits have been used, and on motion thereon filed, they may be again referred to in support of a fresh motion. De Woolf and others v. 14 3. In an affidavit to hold to bail, the residence of a clerk may be described to be of the office in which he is employed. Anon. 15 4. Affidavit of debt," that B. owes to A. 80 much money, laid out and expended, and upon the balance of accounts," is insufficient. Eicke v. Evans.

15

5. Affidavit to hold to bail on an Irish judgment, must shew value of the Irish money. Storie v. Ball.

16

19

19

6. Affidavit by an agent, negativing tender of cash notes, sufficient, unless defendant swear to a tender. Allison v. Atkins. 18 7. Names of several deponents must be inserted in the jurat of affidavit. Anon. 8. An erasure over the jurat does not vitiate it. Atkinson v. Thompson. 9. Where there is a defect in the jurat of an affidavit, on which to found a rule nisi, it cannot be used, nor will time be given 20 except in cases of bail. Anon. 10. Rule nisi granted, to discharge the defendant out of custody on filing common bail, where the debt sworn to was 6007. on the balance of an account, and affidavit was made on the part of the defendant,

[blocks in formation]

2. Amendment allowed in qui tam action, by correcting an error in declaration, in the description of the persons to whom part of the penalty was given, though defendant had pleaded early enough for plaintiff to have gone to trial after an issuable term; and plaintiff had neglected to do so, and had delayed making up the issue till a subsequent term. Solomons v. Jenkins.

23

3. Rule to shew cause at chambers, why judgment, entered by mistake on a warrant of attorney (for a less sum than the sum secured by the warrant of attorney), should not be amended, will not be granted on consent of an attorney who was employed by both parties, but there must be some other person authorized. Anon. 24. 4. A record may be amended in a penal action, by inserting a similiter, though the objection was taken at the trial. Wright t. v. Horton.

25

5. If, on an issue on nil tiel record, there is a variance, the court will permit amendment, on payment of costs. Doubleday v. 27 6. After trial, and verdict for the plaintiff, defendant allowed to amend pleas and have a new trial, on payment of costs. 27 Storer v. Gordon. 7. Amendment allowed after nonsuit, where

« ForrigeFortsett »