mouth; and it was held, that the passage-money could not be recovered back; but on the other hand, if the voyage had been contracted for from Portsmouth as its 4 Campb. 241, commencement, and the money paid by anticipation, it Gillan v. Simp would have been otherwise. Dock Acts. Perhaps it may be useful here to give the decisions upon some of the local acts for regulating the payment of duties and expenses, and for giving compensations in certain cases, although it need hardly be said, that we do not intend to enter into all their provisions. kin. By the Liverpool Acts, certain tonnage duties were 8 Anne, c. 12; made payable to the Dock Company on vessels sailing 2 Geo. 3, c. 86. with cargoes outwards or inwards, but the payment was not to be made for more than once for the same voyage out and home. A ship built in Devon was registered at Liverpool, and soon after cleared out from Bristol to the West. Indies, and from thence came to Liverpool; she then sailed out to the West Indies again, and back to Liverpool. In clearing out for the foreign port, the collector demanded the duty outwards, which was paid under protest, and the Court of King's Bench held, that this was not the same voyage, but that there were two distinct voyages, and that the officer had done right. A ship having cleared outwards from Liverpool to Saint Domingo, discharged her cargo, reloaded, and came to London; discharged that cargo, and loaded again for Liverpool, where she arrived: held that the dockage rate under the local act was to be the London and not the Saint Domingo rate. A duty of 6s. 8d. per ton was paid, under the West India Dock Act, for every vessel coming with a cargo from the West Indies, and the Act declared it to be "in satisfaction of the use and conveniency of the said 11 East, 675, Gildart v. Glad stone, in error from the Com mon Pleas, 2 Taun. 97. 5 M. & S. 328, verpool Docks v. Gladstone, in Common Pleas, Lancaster. 51 Geo. 3, Trustees of Li error from the c. 143. 39 Geo. 3, c. 69, 3. 107. 11 East, 533, Blackett v. Smith. 12 East, 518, Blackett v. Smith. 8 East, 15, Harden v.Smith. "docks, and all charges of navigating, &c. from her "arrival, &c. until she shall be unloaded, &c. together 66 with the use of the light dock for any time not exceeding six months from the time of unloading "such ship." Ship's stores intended for outfit, were notwithstanding considered liable to the payment of wharfage and porterage duties, though had the stores been intended for the necessary use or security of the ship in the dock, they might have been received on board free from any additional charge, except the tonnage rate. Where a ship entered the West India Docks in a very leaky condition, so that she could not wait for the unloading of her cargo in rotation, it was held, that any inconvenience or loss arising therefrom must fall upon the owners; and, therefore, that the Company were not answerable, under such circumstances, for the extra expenses of pumping, procuring lighters, and cooperage. But in the ordinary course the Company must pay all the charges of delivering the goods from the warehouses into the lighters, let them be what they may; it is only where work is required independently of the transitus from the warehouse to the lighter, that an extra compensation can be asked. The London Dock Company are bound under the sta tute to receive goods into their warehouses for a reasonable hire and reward, and they were held not to be justified in publishing a table prescribing the terms on which they would receive the goods of any person into their Allnutt v. Inglis. warehouses. 12 East, 527, 9 East, 165, Manning v. Commissioners of Compensa tion under the West India With respect to compensations under these Acts, it was decided, in the case of Christ's Hospital, that the rate of compensation was to be according to the yearly profits of the premises antecedent to the passing of the Act, and not the profits made annually between the passing of the statue and the opening of the docks, for the principle was that there should be no diminution of income. At the time of passing the Bristol Dock Act, the owners of a brewery were dissatisfied by reason of the deterioration of the water, but, inasmuch as the river Avon, from whence these premises were supplied, is a public river, and there had been no easement attached to their place of trade, the Court refused a mandamus of the Bristol Dock Company. for the purpose of awarding them a compensation. 12 East, 429, The King v. The Directors ADDENDA TO CHAP. I. Cheesman, ex Page 46.-If the master be turned out of posses- 1 Eden, 181. sion upon the vessel being captured, he will not lose his lien for freight in case of a recapture. parte. Page 73.-The transfer under the 5th section must Moody & Malbe made expressly as a pledge. It was Page 81.-These decisions have been somewhat considered in a recent case before Lord Tenterden. the opinion of his Lordship, that where the consignee has had no opportunity of taking his goods within the time stipulated, he can hardly be bound by the contract to pay for not doing so, for he could not be said to detain the vessel. The consignee must have a reasonable time for removing his goods. But after the expiration of such reasonable time, his Lordship added, the consignee will be liable, though the stipulated period, if computed from the time when the discharge of his own goods could have commenced, be not at an end. Page 93.-Where a ship sailed with ballast from London to Jamaica, and was sold in her voyage there, kin, 48, ThompFarmer. son v. Demurrage. Moody & Malkin, 63, Rogers v. Hunter. 1 Maddock, 61, ex parte Hill 4 Bing. 388, and afterwards sailed from Jamaica to London with goods shipped on a contract with the owners of the ship at the time of the shipping, it was held, that the creditors of the quondam owners had not any lien on the freight due in respect of the voyage from Jamaica, for there was no continuity of the original voyage to Jamaica after the ship had arrived there. Page 97.—However, there is now a very recent deMount . Har- cision which establishes, that in an insurance on freight abandonment is not necessary. rison. Page 117.-Upon warranty that the ship was "in port" upon a certain day, the policy being at and from Hamburgh to Vigo, it was held insufficient to show that Moody & Mal- the ship was safe in another port (Cuxhaven) without kin, 81, Colby t. Hunter. the limits of the port of Hamburgh, on that day. kin. 82, Train v. Bennett. Page 189.-However, where there was a clause of forfeiture if seamen should disobey orders, or neglect their Moody & Mal duty, it was holden that their right to wages was not gone where their disobedience and neglect arose in consequence of previous misconduct of the captain. It would have been the same if the owners had misconducted themselves so as to induce the refractoriness on the part of the sailors. CHAP. II. OF COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS AND LIABILITIES. Sect. 1. Sale and Delivery of Goods. 2. Contracts with particular Persons and Public 3. Agreements; Rescinding Contracts; and Remedies SECTION I. CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE AND DELIVERY OF GOODS. 7T. Rep. 350, . Rann v. Hughes. IN all contracts there must be a valid consideration; (a) See now the new Statute in the Addenda to Chap. II. s. 17. See Add, to |