Horace Gray

Name: Crossman v. Burrill — Opinion of the Court
Author: Horace Gray

Crossman v. Burrill — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Crossman v. Burrill — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Horace Gray. It explores elements such as charterers, cesser and demurrage.

Quotes from Crossman v. Burrill — Opinion of the Court (Horace Gray)

Horace Gray, Crossman v. Burrill — Opinion of the Court

“ There is a principle of reason which is obvious to commercial minds, and which should be borne in mind in considering a cesser clause so framed, namely, that reasonable persons would regard the lien given as an equivalent for the release of responsibility, which the cesser clause in its earlier part creates, and one would expect to find the lien commensurate with the release of liability.' And Lord Justice Fry added: 'The rule that we are prima facie to apply to the construction of a cesser clause followed by a lien clause appears to me to be well ascertained. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Horace Gray, Crossman v. Burrill — Opinion of the Court

“ The charter party, like many mercantile instruments in common use, is drawn up in brief and disjointed sentences, and must be construed according to the intent of the parties as manifested by the whole instrument, rather than by the literal meaning of any particular clause taken by itself. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Horace Gray, Crossman v. Burrill — Opinion of the Court

“ It is to be remembered that by the terms of this charter party it is only for 'detention by default of' the charterers or their agent that they agree to pay the amount of demurrage specified in the charter.
A detention which is caused, not by any act of the shipowners or of the charterers, but wholly by the actual firing of guns from an enemy's ships of war upon the forts in the harbor, directly affecting the vessel and making the discharge of the cargo dangerous and impossible, cannot be considered as caused by 'default' of the charterers, in any just sense of the word. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Horace Gray, Crossman v. Burrill — Opinion of the Court

“ In short, in a charter party which contains a clause for cesser of the liability of the charterers, coupled with a clause creating a lien in favor of the shipowner, the cesser clause is to be construed, if possible, as inapplicable to a liability with which the lien is not commensurate. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Horace Gray, Crossman v. Burrill — Opinion of the Court

“ Therefore the proposition is true, that where the provision for cesser of liability is accompanied by the stipulation as to lien, then the cesser of liability is not to apply in so far as the lien, which by the charter party the charterers are able to create, is not equivalent to the liability of the charterers. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Horace Gray, Crossman v. Burrill — Opinion of the Court

“ In other words, it cannot be assumed that the shipowner, without any mercantile reason, would give up by the cesser clause rights which he had stipulated for in another part of the contract.' Lord Justice Bowen said: 'There is no doubt that the parties may, if they choose, so frame the clause as to emancipate the charterer from any specified liability, without providing for any terms of compensation to the shipowner ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Horace Gray, Crossman v. Burrill — Opinion of the Court

“ But on the same page of the brief it is admitted that 'this question having been heard on the exception to the sufficiency of the defense, the question as to the truth of the allegations of the answer was not before the court.' And this is conclusively established by its opinions and decrees. The principal opinion shows that it took up, in the first instance, the questions of law raised by the exceptions to the answer, because their determination might relieve the parties from the delay and expense of introducing proof. 35 U.S. App. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Horace Gray, Crossman v. Burrill — Opinion of the Court

“ Pendergast (1879) 16 Blatchf. 565, 567, Fed. Cas. No. 3,647, Chief Justice Waite, speaking of a similar provision, said: 'The respondents, in effect, agree that no more than forty-five running days should be occupied in loading and discharging the cargo, unless it was occasioned by some fault of the vessel, or some unusual and extraordinary interruption that could not have been anticipated when the contract was made.'
The case of Sixteen Hundred Tons of Nitrate of Soda (1894) 15 U.S. App. ”

Horace Gray

Summary

Quotes from Crossman v. Burrill — Opinion of the Court (Horace Gray)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature