« 上一頁繼續 »
Statement place of loading in the Howden or Tyne docks as ordered, of claim for not and after being entirely unballasted at the spout and ready loading. for cargo should, after notice in writing to be given by the
defendants to the plaintiffs as in the said charter-party mentioned, there load in the customary manner a full and complete cargo of coal, not exceeding what she could reasonably carry over and above her tackle, apparel, provisions, fuel and furniture, and being so loaded, should proceed to Cronstadt and, customary perils excepted, deliver the same to the freighters or their assigns on being paid freight at the rate of £8 28. 6d. sterling per keel of 2115 tons delivered, the freighters or their assigns paying all customary dues and duties on the cargo and the ship, and all other charges.
5. It was by the said charter-party further agreed that the penalty for non-performance of the said agreement should be the estimated amount of freight as, for, and in the nature of liquidated and ascertained damages.
6. The said vessel afterwards proceeded to a safe place of loading in the Tyne docks, and was ready to load a full and complete cargo of coal in accordance with the said charterparty, and the plaintiffs did all things necessary on their part to entitle them to have the said cargo loaded by the defendants, but the defendants broke the contract and wholly refused to load the said cargo.
7. The freight which would have been earned by the said steamship on the said voyage if the defendants had performed the said contract, being estimated, amounts to the sum of £601 58. (the sum named in the said charter-party as liquidated damages), which, in consequence of the said breach of the said charter-party, the plaintiffs became and are entitled to recover.
The plaintiffs claim £601 58. damages.
Statement of claim for not loading according to charterparty,
Action by Ship-owner against Shippers for not Loading according
to Charter-party and Demurrage, though plaintiff's accepted
the cargo from defendants without prejudice. 1. The plaintiffs are the owners of the steamship“ K.” referred to in the charter-party hereinafter set forth.
2. On or about the the 1st day of September, 1877, a charterparty was made and entered into by and between the plaintiff's and the defendants in the words and figures following:
[Here follows the charter-party set out at length. By its Statement terms the “ K.” was to proceed from Bombay to Calcutta, and for not the defendants undertook to load her there with a full and loading
and decomplete cargo of rice, and ten working days were allowed to
murrage. them for the purpose of loading.] 3. In accordance with the terms of the said charter-party, having ac
plaintiffs the said ship, after discharging her cargo at Bombay, duly pro- cepted anceeded with all convenient speed to Calcutta, and arrived there "reserving on the 19th day of October.
rights." 4. All things were done and happened and all times elapsed necessary to entitle the plaintiffs to have the terms of the said charter-party observed by the defendants, but the defendants neglected and refused to supply a cargo to the said vessel, and detained her in waiting for such cargo until the 7th of November, when they informed the plaintiffs that they were unable to perform their part of the said charter-party, and would not perform it, and requested the plaintiffs to allow the ship to be used by them otherwise than as provided by the said charter-party, without prejudice to any claim that the plaintiffs might have against them by reason of their non-fulfilment of the terms of the same, and the plaintiffs consented to such request on the above-mentioned terms.
The plaintiffs claim :
charter-party by the defendants.
Action on a Charter-party for Demurrage only. 1. The plaintiff was on the 21st October, 1876, and still is Statement
of claim for the owner of the steamship “S.”
demurrage 2. On the said 21st October, 1876, the said ship being then only. in L., a charter-party was entered into between the plaintiff of the one part, and the defendants, thereinafter called the affreighters, of the other part.
3. By the said charter-party it was agreed, amongst other things, that the said ship should with all convenient speed sail and proceed to R., or so near thereto as she might safely get, and there load from the factors of the said affreighters a full and complete cargo of oats, lighterage, if any, to be at affreighters' risk and ship’s expense, the cargo to be brought
Statement alongside and taken from alongside at affreighters' risk and of claim for de- expense, not exceeding all she could reasonably stow and carry murrage. over and above her tackle, apparel, provisions, and furniture,
and that being so loaded, the said ship should proceed to L. direct, or so near thereto as she might safely get, and there deliver the said cargo; and it was further agreed that eleven running days, Sundays excepted, were to be allowed the affreighters for loading and discharging the said cargo, and ten days on demurrage over and above the said loading days at £30 per day.
4. The said ship, in accordance with the terms of the said charter-party duly performed the said voyage from L. to R. and from thence to L., and the plaintiff did everything that it was his duty under the said charter-party to do in order to enable the said ship to be duly loaded and discharged, and in loading and discharging the same at the said ports of R. and London within the said eleven loading days.
5. The said ship, however, was not loaded and discharged within the eleven running days allowed to the said defendants by the said charter-party for the said purposes, but, on the contrary, eighteen days were occupied in such loading and discharging, and the ship was thus kept and detained in demurrage for seven days over and above the loading days allowed by the said charter-party.
The plaintiff claims £210 for demurrage.
Statement of Defence. Statement 1. In answer to paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the of defence defendants say that the said vessel did not load at R. from the
defendants' factors a full and complete cargo of oats in accordance with the terms of the said charter-party, and the master of the said vessel prevented and delayed the defendants for a considerable time from loading the portion of the cargo which was loaded at R., and refused to load a full and complete cargo there in accordance with the terms of the said charter-party, and sailed for a port called "B." with only a portion of the cargo on board, and the defendants at his request forwarded the residue of the cargo by rail to “B.” and the same was there loaded on board the said vessel.
2. The defendants, except as admitted by the payment into
Court hereinafter mentioned, deny the allegations in para- Statement graph 5 of this statement of claim. They were always ready to action and willing to load the said vessel pursuant to the said charter- for demurparty, and did not keep and detain her for seven days over and above the lying days allowed thereby, or for any longer period than was covered by the said payment into Court.
3. Except as aforesaid, the detention of the vessel was wholly caused by the acts and defaults of the master of the vessel, as hereinbefore stated, and not by the acts of the defendants.
4. The defendants bring into Court the sum of £60 for Payment two days' demurrage of the said vessel, and say that the same
into Court. is sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff's claim.
Ship-ou'ner against Charterer for agreed Hire of Chartered
1. The plaintiffs were, on the 1st August, 1874, the owners of
of claim for the steamship“ British Queen."
hire of 2. On the 1st of August, 1874, the said steamship being steamship then in Calcutta, a charter-party was there entered into be- months' tween J. S., the master, on behalf of himself and the said steam- charter
party. ship, of the one part, and the defendants of the other part.
3. By the said charter-party it was agreed, amongst other things, that the defendants should be entitled to the whole carrying power of the said steamship for the period of four months, commencing from the said 1st August, 1874, upon a voyage or voyages between Calcutta and Mauritius and back ; that the defendants should pay for such use of the said steamship to the plaintiffs' agents at Calcutta, monthly, the sum of £1,000 ; that the charter should terminate at Calcutta ; and that if at the expiration of the period of four months the said steamship should be upon a voyage, then the defendants should pay pro ratâ for the hire of the ship up to her arrival at Calcutta, and the complete discharge of her cargo there.
4. The “ British Queen " made several voyages in pursuance of the said charter-party, and the first three monthly sums of £1,000 each were duly paid.
5. The period of four months expired on the 1st December, 1874, and at that time the steamship was on a voyage from Mauritius to Calcutta. She arrived at Calcutta on the 13th
Statement and the discharge of her cargo there was completed on the 16th of claim for freight
of December aforesaid. on four
6. The plaintiffs' agents at Calcutta called upon the demonths' charter- fendants to pay to them the fourth monthly sum of £1,000, party. and a sum of £500 for the hire of the said steamship from the
1st to the 16th December, 1874, but the defendants have not
The plaintiffs claim :-
from the 1st December, 1874, until judgment.
Statement of defence.
Statement of Defence. 1. By the charter-party sued upon it was expressly provided that if any accident should happen or any repairs become necessary to the engines or boilers of the said steamship, the time occupied in repairs should be deducted from the period of the said charter, and a proportionate reduction in the charter money should be made. 2. On the
repairs became necessary to the engines and boilers of the said steamship, and ten days were occupied in effecting such repairs. 3. On the
an accident happened to the engines of the said steamship at Mauritius, and two days were occupied in effecting the repairs necessary in consequence thereof.
4. The defendants are entitled to a reduction in the chartermoney of £400 by reason of the time occupied in effecting the said repairs.
Counter-claim. By way of set-off and counter-claim the defendants claim as follows :
1. By the charter-party it was expressly provided that the charterers should furnish funds for the said steamship's necessary disbursements, except in the port of Calcutta, without any commission or interest on any sum so advanced.
2. The defendants paid, for the necessary disbursements of the said steamship in the port of Mauritius between the and the
1874, sums amounting in all to £625 148. 6d. 3. The charter-party also contained an express warranty that the said steamship was at the date thereof capable of steaming