Subject_1 SOLIDUM ET PRO RATA. Subject_2 SECT. XI.
Owners of a Ship, how liable?
Learmonth v. Guthrie and Paterson
Date: 20 July 1669 Case No. No. 47.
Found not liable in soidum. - But see the two next cases.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
There being a decreet of Admirality given against Paterson, assignee, and Guthrie and others, as his owners, for the value of a great quantity of wheat, which the skipper should have transported from the Pow of Errol to Leith, upon this ground, that he diverted and went into Dundee, notwithstanding he had a fair wind, and that the wheat was damnified, by a bruise or hurt, for the which they were condemned in the whole value, and decerned to make payment conjunctly and severally; parties being heard, upon a bill of suspension given in, the Lords did find, That the decreet was, as to the owners, who, at most, could not be liable, but in so far as extended to the value of their proportions of the vessel. Thereafter, they restricting the decreet against the skipper, it was alleged, That the decreet was null, in so far as this defence was proponed, and instantly repelled, viz. that the skipper was forced into Dundee by stress of weather, as was likewise another vessel, in her company, and that the damage was received from an accidental bruise from another ship. The Lords, notwithstanding, did sustain the decreet in preferring the pursuer to prove his libel, that the wind was fair; which was hard, seeing, in such cases, the Lords, for the most part, allow a conjunct probation; at least the defenders being as strong and pregnant in their allegeance as the pursuer, and contrary thereto.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 380. Gosford MS. p. 73.
*** Stair's report of this case is No. 3. p. 3148. voce Damage And Interest.
