網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

Statement

of claim

against charterer for not

cargo for owners' benefit), and there load from the factors of the defendant a full and complete cargo of iron ore, and being so loaded should proceed forthwith to Newport (Alexandra loading and dock), and there deliver the same on payment of freight at demurrage. the rate of 12s. 6d. per ton of 20 cwt. delivered, and that the cargo should be loaded at the rate of 200 tons per working day, and discharged at the rate of 250 tons per working day from the time of being ready to load and unload, and that demurrage over and above the said lying time should be paid for four days at £20 per day, payable day by day.

3. The said steamship "Pansy " duly proceeded to Parazualos aforesaid, and the plaintiffs did all things necessary on their part and all times elapsed to entitle the plaintiffs to have the said charter-party performed by the defendant on his part and the agreed cargo loaded on board the said steamer by the defendant, yet the defendant did not load the agreed cargo or any cargo on board the said steamer, and kept and detained the said vessel as hereinafter mentioned, whereby the plaintiff lost the freight which he would have earned under the said charterparty and the benefit he would have derived from a performance by the defendant of the same, and was deprived of the use of the said vessel, and was put to great expense in and about endeavouring to obtain other freight and otherwise in respect of the said vessel and her detention hereinafter mentioned.

Statement 4. The plaintiffs also say that the defendant kept the said of grounds of claim of vessel on demurrage within the meaning of the said charter-party demurrage. for four days over and above the said period so agreed for loading the said vessel and thereby became liable to pay to the plaintiff £80 for demurrage as aforesaid, but has not paid the same.

Freight,

lien for.

5. The plaintiffs further say that the defendant detained the said vessel eleven days beyond the periods so agreed upon for loading and demurrage as aforesaid, whereby the plaintiffs were deprived of the use of the said steamer during that time, and

freight, as on the old contract, without reference to the contract with
the new ship. (Shipton v. Thornton, 9 Ad. & E. 314.) On the subject
of
pro ratâ freight generally, see the recent cases of Hooper v. Burness,
45 L. J. 377; Metcalfe v. The Britannia Iron Works, 45 L. J. 837; 46
L. J. 443. The ship-owner has a lien upon the goods for his freight;
but he has no lien on goods shipped for unliquidated damages by reason
of the charterer failing to load a full cargo. (Phillips v. Rodie, 15 East,
547; Gray v. Carr, L. R. 6 Q. B. 522.)

incurred great expense in keeping the same and maintaining Statement the crew thereof.

5. Particulars of the plaintiffs' claim have been furnished to the defendant and the plaintiffs have requested payment thereof, but the defendant has refused and still refuses to pay the same or any part thereof.

The plaintiffs claim :£1000 damages.

£80 for demurrage.

Statement of Defence.

of claim for not loading

and de

murrage.

Statement
Refusal of

of defence.

master to

cargo.

1. The defendant denies the allegations contained in the 3rd paragraph of the statement of claim, and says that he was at all reasonable times in that behalf, ready and willing to load a cargo according to the said charter-party, but the master of accept the said ship did not nor would receive the same on board thereof. If any expense was incurred by the said master in obtaining another charter-party (which the defendant denies), it was so incurred in consequence of his own acts and defaults and not otherwise.

2. The defendant denies the allegations contained in the 4th and 5th paragraphs of the statement of claim, and says that he did not keep or detain the plaintiffs' said vessel as therein alleged. If the said ship remained at the said port of loading (which the defendant denies), she was kept there by her said master for purposes of his own, and was not in any way detained by the defendant.

Action by Ship-owner against Shipper for not Loading.
(Another form.)

1. The plaintiffs are ship-owners and the owners of the Another steamship "A."

form of statement

not load

2. The defendants are merchants and ship-brokers carrying of claim for on business in

Street, in the City of London.

3. On the 9th of March, 1877, a charter-party was entered into between the plaintiffs of the one part and the defendants of the other part.

4. By the said charter-party it was, amongst other things not material to this action, agreed that the said steamship "A." should with all convenient speed sail and proceed to a safe

ing.

of claim

for not loading.

Statement place of loading in the Howden or Tyne docks as ordered, and after being entirely unballasted at the spout and ready 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 2s. 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.

Statement of claim for not loading according

to charter

party,

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 plaintiff's claim £601 58. damages.

Action by Ship-owner against Shippers for not Loading according to Charter-party and Demurrage, though plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs and the defendants in the words and figures following

of claim

[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 complete cargo of rice, and ten working days were allowed to them for the purpose of loading.]

3. In accordance with the terms of the said charter-party, the said ship, after discharging her cargo at Bombay, duly proceeded with all convenient speed to Calcutta, and arrived there on the 19th day of October.

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 :

(1.) £160 for demurrage up to the 7th of November, 1872.
(2.) £2500 as damages for the non-fulfilment of the said
charter-party by the defendants.

Action on a Charter-party for Demurrage only.

and de

murrage.

having acplaintiffs cepted anreserving rights."

other cargo,

1. The plaintiff was on the 21st October, 1876, and still is Statement the owner of the steamship "S."

2. On the said 21st October, 1876, the said ship being then 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

of claim for demurrage only.

of claim

for demurrage.

Statement alongside and taken from alongside at affreighters' risk and expense, not exceeding all she could reasonably stow and carry 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.

Statement

of defence to above.

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.

say

Statement of Defence.

1. In answer to paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the defendants 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

« 上一頁繼續 »