Luke v Lyde

Last updated

Luke v Lyde (1759), 2 Burr 882, 97 ER 614 (KB) [1] [2] is an early judgment on the Law of the Sea. [3]

Contents

Facts of the Case

A ship carrying fish from New Foundland to Lisbon, Portugal was captured by the French after 17 days of their voyage. The Sarah was recaptured by an English privateer three days later and taken to Bideford. [4] the defendant received the fish and sold it in Bideford for half its value.

The issue before the court was: [4]

Court Finding

Mansfield held that in the present case there was nothing to prevent freight from being due. "Freight became due from and upon the freighters taking the goods into their possession: and continued due, by the defendants not totally abandoning them."

Regarding how much freight was due Mansfield relied on what he termed "the ‘principles’ he instinctively ‘found’ in the common law" and ruled ""The master had come seventeen days of his voyage and was within four days of the destined port when the accident happened. Therefore he ought to be paid his freight for 17/21 parts of the full voyage for that half of the cargo that was saved." [4]

The case is notable for establishing the dicta "that the maritime law is not the law of a particular country, but the general law of nations."

Lord Mansfields reasoning flows out of that the law of the sea began with the Rhodian Code, then the Consolato del Mere, the laws of Hanseatic League the Laws of Wisbuy and Ordinance of Louis 14th. From this Mansfield argues that there exists a set of internationally recognized practices in regard to law of the Sea. [5] [6] [7]

See also

Related Research Articles

Admiralty law or maritime law is a body of law that governs nautical issues and private maritime disputes. Admiralty law consists of both domestic law on maritime activities, and private international law governing the relationships between private parties operating or using ocean-going ships. While each legal jurisdiction usually has its own legislation governing maritime matters, the international nature of the topic and the need for uniformity has, since 1900, led to considerable international maritime law developments, including numerous multilateral treaties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield</span> British barrister, politician and judge (1705–1793)

William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield,, was a British barrister, politician and judge noted for his reform of English law. Born to Scottish nobility, he was a member of the Scottish Clan Murray and was educated in Perth, Scotland before moving to London at the age of 13 to take up a place at Westminster School. He was accepted into Christ Church, Oxford, in May 1723, and graduated four years later. Returning to London from Oxford, he was called to the Bar by Lincoln's Inn on 23 November 1730, and quickly gained a reputation as an excellent barrister.

<i>Raffles v Wichelhaus</i> Case of mutual mistake in English contract law

Raffles v Wichelhaus [1864] EWHC Exch J19, often called "The Peerless" case, is a leading case on mutual mistake in English contract law. The case established that where there is latent ambiguity as to an essential element of the contract, the Court will attempt to find a reasonable interpretation from the context of the agreement before it will void it.

Forum non conveniens (FNC) is a mostly common law legal doctrine through which a court acknowledges that another forum or court where the case might have been brought is a more appropriate venue for a legal case, and transfers the case to such a forum. A change of venue might be ordered, for example, to transfer a case to a jurisdiction within which an accident or incident underlying the litigation occurred and where all the witnesses reside.

A custom of the sea is a custom said to be practiced by the officers and crew of ships and boats in the open sea, as distinguished from maritime law, which is a distinct and coherent body of law governing maritime questions and offenses.

In law, the enforcement of foreign judgments is the recognition and enforcement in one jurisdiction of judgments rendered in another ("foreign") jurisdiction. Foreign judgments may be recognized based on bilateral or multilateral treaties or understandings, or unilaterally without an express international agreement.

Marine insurance covers the physical loss or damage of ships, cargo, terminals, and any transport by which the property is transferred, acquired, or held between the points of origin and the final destination. Cargo insurance is the sub-branch of marine insurance, though marine insurance also includes onshore and offshore exposed property,, hull, marine casualty, and marine losses. When goods are transported by mail or courier or related post, shipping insurance is used instead.

<i>Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd</i>

Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd[1942] UKHL 4 is a leading House of Lords decision on the doctrine of frustration in English contract law.

A maritime lien, in English and US law and elsewhere, is a specific aspect of admiralty law concerning a claim against a ship for services rendered to it or injury caused by it.

The Court of Civil Jurisdiction was a court established in the late 18th century, in the colony of New South Wales which subsequently became a state of Australia. The court had jurisdiction to deal with all civil disputes in the then fledgling colony. It was in operation between 1788, the date of establishment of the new colony, and 1814.

The Hague–Visby Rules is a set of international rules for the international carriage of goods by sea. They are a slightly updated version of the original Hague Rules which were drafted in Brussels in 1924.

Affreightment is a legal term relating to shipping.

<i>Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc</i> English contract law case concerning remoteness of damage

The Achilleas or Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc [2008] UKHL 48 is an English contract law case, concerning remoteness of damage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon</span> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon, the Mikhail Lermontov case, is a leading Australian contract law case, on the incorporation of exclusion clauses and damages for breach of contract or restitution for unjust enrichment.

<i>Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd</i> 1962 English contract law case

Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26 [1961] EWCA Civ 7 is a landmark English contract law case. It introduced the concept of innominate terms, a category between "warranties" and "conditions".

<i>Cutter v Powell</i>

Cutter v Powell (1795) 101 ER 573 is an English contract law case, concerning substantial performance of a contract.

Jackson v Union Marine Insurance is an early English contract law case concerning the right to terminate an agreement.

<i>Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor, Gow & Co</i>

Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor, Gow & Co [1892] AC 25 is an English tort law case concerning the economic tort of conspiracy to injure. A product of its time, the courts adhered to a laissez faire doctrine allowing firms to form a cartel, which would now be seen as contrary to the Competition Act 1998.

Somerset v Stewart (1772) 98 ER 499 is a judgment of the English Court of King's Bench in 1772, relating to the right of an enslaved person on English soil not to be forcibly removed from the country and sent to Jamaica for sale. According to one reported version of the case, Lord Mansfield decided that:

The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory. It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bill of lading</span> Document issued by a carrier (or their agent) to acknowledge receipt of cargo for shipment

A bill of lading is a document issued by a carrier to acknowledge receipt of cargo for shipment. Although the term is historically related only to carriage by sea, a bill of lading may today be used for any type of carriage of goods. Bills of lading are one of three crucial documents used in international trade to ensure that exporters receive payment and importers receive the merchandise. The other two documents are a policy of insurance and an invoice. Whereas a bill of lading is negotiable, both a policy and an invoice are assignable. In international trade outside the United States, bills of lading are distinct from waybills in that the latter are not transferable and do not confer title. Nevertheless, the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 grants "all rights of suit under the contract of carriage" to the lawful holder of a bill of lading, or to the consignee under a sea waybill or a ship's delivery order.

References

  1. Full text of judgment on CommonLII
  2. James Oldham, English Common Law in the Age of Mansfield (Univ of North Carolina Press, 2004).
  3. Willem Theo Oosterveld, The Law of Nations in Early American Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice from the Revolution to the Monroe Doctrine (BRILL, 13 Nov. 2015) p47.
  4. 1 2 3 Bridget Murphy, "Luke v Lyde - An Analysis" [2003] 9(4).
  5. Anthony Morrison, Places of Refuge for Ships in Distress (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 8 Jun. 2012) p 81.
  6. Chief Justice James Allsop , Comity and Commerce, Digital Law Library.
  7. See also Abthony H. Angelo, Boris Kozolchyk, Peter Ellinger, Jacob S. Ziegel, Werner Pfennigstorf, Wernhard Möschel, International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, Volume 17, Part 25 (Brill Archive, 1990) p47.