The Sun.
London, England, 1822-02-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEB. 14.
London Sittings after Hilary Term, before the LORD CHIEF
JUSTICE and Common Juries.
NEALE V. MASSON AND ANOTHER.

Mr. SCATtLETT opened this_ case to the Jury, as one which
world probably turn on a point of law, and which might as
well be decided at once, as after a trial of two hours. The de-
fendants were ship-brokers, who, in August last, negotiated
between the plaintiff, who was owner of the ship Bodington,
and a person named Warren, for chartering the vessel on a
voyage to St. Vincent, and Madeira. Mr. Neale gave to the
defendants the ship's register, in order that the master's name
might be endorsed on it ; but, subsequently receiving an en-
grossed charter party instead of a draught, and objecting to the
captain appointed by the freighters, he refused to execute the
contract, and Mr. Warren procured another vessel to perform
the voyage. The commission of the brokers was to be two and
a half per cent. on the homeward freight ; and because it was
stipulated that the vessel should take in a full cargo, which
would amount to 2,0001., they contended that they had a right
to their commission, although the contract never was carried
into effect. They therefore detained the register, and refused
to give it up without payment of the full amount of this esti-
mated commission, and of some other small charges, amount-
ing in the whole to 541. 19s. 3d. This sum the plaintiff, in
order to regain possession of the register, paid under protest,
and now sought to recover it back having been illegally de-
manded of him.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE intimated a strong opinion that
the defendants could have no right to detain the register, under
any circumstances, for a commission on prospective freight,
and Mr. MARIIYAT thought himself bound to lay the defend-
ants' case in evidence before the Jury.

The statement of Mr. SCARLETT was substantially proved,
except that there was contradictory evidence as to the ground
upon which the plaintiff refused to suffer the vessel to sail : and
it seemed doubtful whether he had objected to the appointment
of the captain, and whether the draught of the charter party
had been duly submitted to his perusal.
But the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE held these disputed circum-
(dances quite immaterial to the present action. If there was an
improper refusal to perform the contract, the parties aggrieved
would have their remedy by a special action for damages. But it
was clear that in this case no action could be sustained for any
specific sum on the mere execution of the instrument. Had
there been an express agreement that a certain stipulated sum
should be paid, whether the vessel was lost or not lost, earned
fright or earned none, then theremight be some pretence for
saying that the broker had a definite claim. But there could be
no claim for commission, except there was something received
out of which commission should be paid. Now the rule was,
that a broker might hold papers as alien, wherever he had
present and certain demand, but never for a claim which possi-
bly might arise in future. He accordingly directed a verdict for
the plaintiff—damages 501., the smaller item not being thought
worthy of discussion.
Mr. SCARLETT observed that ,he had been a true prophet,
for the trial had taken up just two hours.