Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Seligmann v. The Flensburg Steam Shipping Co. [1871] ScotLR 8_507 (24 May 1871)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1871/08SLR0507.html
Cite as: [1871] SLR 8_507, [1871] ScotLR 8_507
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session
Page: 507↓
Court of Session Inner House First Division.
v.
et e contra.
Facts:
Where, in an action of damages arising out of a collision at sea, the jury had found for the pursuer, who was the owner of the injured ship, and had assessed the damage at the £8 per ton of the tonnage of the defender's vessel, the full amount allowed by the 54th sect. of the Merchant Shipping Amendment Act, 1862, held that it was no ground for a motion for a new trial that the jury had not apportioned the damages, or given any indication in their verdict that the sum given was not all due to the shipowner, but was apportionable between him and the owners of the cargo.
Observed that the proper course was still open to the defenders to secure themselves if they thought they were in danger.
These were counter actions of damage arising out of a collision which took place in the Firth of Forth on December 15, 1870, between the steam ship “Flora” of Glasgow, belonging to Mr Seligmann, merchant in Glasgow, and the steam ship
Page: 508↓
“Prima,” belonging to the Flensburg Steam Shipping Company. The issue sent to the jury in the first case, viz., that in which Mr Seligmann, the owner of the “Flora,” was pursuer, and the Flensburg Steam Shipping Company the defenders, was as follows: “Whether, on or about the 15th day of December 1870, in the Firth of Forth, the said steam ship ‘Prima’ came into collision with the said steam ship ‘Flora,’ whereby the ‘Flora’ was injured, through the fault of the defenders, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer.”
Damages laid at £15,000.
In the second action, viz., that in which the Flensburg Steam Shipping Company were pursuers, and Mr Seligmann defender, was in the same terms, transposing the names of the ships. Damages laid at £2000.
The jury found for the pursuer on the issue in the first case, and, in accordance with the direction of the Court, which was not objected to by the defenders at the time, assessed the damages at £4360, the full amount of the limit allowed by the Merchant Shipping Amendment Act, 1862, viz., at the rate of £8 per ton of the tonnage of the “Prima.” On the issue in the second case they found for the defender.
The defenders in the first case obtained a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted; not so much upon the ground that the verdict was contrary to evidence, as that in giving their verdict the jury had not qualified it, as they should have done, in such a way as to show that the sum of damages awarded was apportionable between the pursuer, the owner of the vessel, and the owners of the cargo, whoever they might be, and was not all due to the pursuer individually. To leave the verdict as it was, they argued, was to leave them in a position of having a verdict standing against them for an amount of damages which they were not due to the pursuer.
The Court granted the rule.
Watson and Asher to show cause.
Shand and Maclean in reply.
At advising—
Solicitors: Agent for Mr Seligmann— James Webster, S.S.C.
Agents for the Flensburg Steam Shipping Company— Duncan & Mann, S.S.C.