« EelmineJätka »
at the time when the loading began, then, for the reasons which I have already given, I should have thought the plaintiffs entitled to the whole. It seems to me that in this case the plaintiffs are entitled to all or nothing. For the reasons given I think them entitled to nothing, on the ground that the policy had not attached. Rule absolute.
case, and that the assessment was accordingly right.
[For the report of the above case, see 41 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) M.C. p. 161.]
Poor Rate-Parochial and Acreage Principle-Docks extending into different Parishes.
The appellants occupy docks in several parishes and townships on the Lancashire and Cheshire sides of the Mersey. By the Acts of Parliament relating to these docks it is provided that they shall be held and administered as one estate under one management. The rates for using the dock property are for the most part uniform, and any vessel having once paid the dock rate is entitled to use all docks where the rates are not larger, and to use any other docks on paying the difference. The docks on the Lancashire side of the Mersey are by far the most profitable part of the undertaking, which is carried on at a loss on the Cheshire side of the river. appellants had been rated by the parish of Liverpool on the principle of ascertaining the net income of the docks, &c., locally situated within the parish of Liverpool, without taking into account the profit of the whole undertaking:-Held, that the parochial principle must always, except in cases of insuperable difficulty, as in The Queen v. The Dock Company at Kingston-uponHull, 21 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) M.C. 153; s. c. 18 Q.B. Rep. 325, be preferred, that no such difficulty was shewn in the present
Articled Clerk-Notices for Examination and Admission-Omission to Renew.
An articled clerk gave the proper notices for examination and admission as an attor ney in Easter Term. He passed his examination in that Term, but did not apply for admission, nor did he renew his notices as required by R. (atts.) Hilary Term, 1853, 8. 6:-Held, upon an application in Trinity Term to be allowed to renew the notices, so that he might be admitted during that Term, that the rule was positive, and that this Court would not dispense with it.
This was an application on behalf of an articled clerk to be allowed to renew his notices for admission as if they had been duly given in Easter Term last.
The following affidavit was used in support of the application—
1. I, A. J. Hay, say that I was lately an articled clerk to S. F. Langham, of London and of Steyning, in the county of Sussex. I passed my final examination for admission in Easter Term last. The proper
notices for examination and for admission in Easter Term having been given, my name appeared in the lists, stuck up in the office, of persons applying for admission as attorneys in Easter Term.
"2. Being in my principal's service during Easter Term, I did not then apply for admission, and the notices for my said admission were not renewed for the present Trinity Term, I being quite unaware of the necessity for such renewal, believing that, after notice was once given, admission could be obtained in any Term.
"3. Soon after passing my said final examination, I was unaninously appointed by the justices of the Steyning Petty Sessional division in Sussex to be their clerk, in the room of my said principal, who had
ARGUED AND DETERMINED
Court of Common Pleas,
AND IN THE
(ON ERROR AND ON APPEAL FROM THE COMMON PLEAS),
WILLIAM PATERSON, ESQ., AND GILMORE EVANS, Esq.,
AND ON APPEAL TO
The House of Lords,
EDMUND STORY MASKELYNE, Esq., BARRISTER-AT-Law.
CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED
Court of Common Pleas,
AND IN THE
Exchequer Chamber and House of Lords
ON ERROR AND APPEAL IN CASES IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
MICHAELMAS TERM, 35 VICTORIÆ.
1871. Nov. 9, 25.
THE NORTH BRITISH AND MER-
Insurance against Fire-Construction of Policy-Goods Insured by Bailee—“ Assured's own in Trust or on Commission for which the Assured was responsible."
By a floating policy goods in a specified wharf were insured against loss by fire, but the insurance was limited to goods which
"the assured's own, in trust or on commission for which the assured was responsible." Goods were destroyed by fire at such wharf, which the assured, to whom they had belonged, had sold to purchasers, who had paid him for the same before the fire. The assured, however, held the wharfinger's delivery warrants for such goods on behalf of such purchasers, but merely for the convenience of paying, if required to do so, the charges necessary to clear the goods, such as custom-house dues and rent payable by the purchasers:-Held, that at the time of the fire the property in the goods had passed to the purchasers, and that the goods remained at their risk, and not at the risk of the assured, who had no longer any interest in them, or responsibility to the purchasers in NEW SERIES, 41.—C.P.
respect of them in case of fire; and further that, as the assurer's liability was expressly limited by such policy to such goods as were not only held in trust by the assured but for not covered by the policy. which he was responsible, the goods were
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants for the recovery of the sum of 6361. 138. 7d., which the plaintiff's alleged to have been paid by them to the defendants in excess of the sums due on certain policies of insurance, and which the defendants agreed, in the event of that allegation being well founded, to repay to the plaintiffs; and by the consent of the parties and a Judge's order, a CASE was stated for the opinion of the Court, the material parts of which were the following:
The defendants, who are tea merchants, effected with the plaintiffs in 1865, amongst others, two policies, each dated 13th of October, 1865, by which the plaintiffs, in consideration of an annual premium, insured from loss or damage by fire, as from the 29th of September, 1865 (subject to conditions in the policies contained), to an amount not exceeding on each policy 3,500l., merchandise (jute, petroleum, and