The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-27 00:00:00

THIS, DAY.)

LAW, INTEL

COURT OF CHANCERY.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)

D) 'CMOS V. GIBSON AND cuititlE.--JUDGMENI.
This is an appeal from a decree of Vice-Chancellor
Wood dismissing the plaintiff's bill.
The facts of the case are these :—ln the month of Octo-
ber, 1857, the defendant Currie, who was negotiating for
the purchase of a ship named Allerton, agreed by charter
party of that date to carry a cargo of coals for the plaintiff
from Newcastle to Suez by the ship in question. The
plaintiff was to pay the freight partly in bills at
three months and part in six months, and the
rest on tne performance of the voyage, but the
acceptances were not to be handed over until the
vessel had sailed. On the 6th of January, 1858, a bill of
sale of the, ship was executed, and Currie deposited the
acceptances with Messrs. Bramley-Moore and Company,
of Liverpool, who were the vendors of the vessel, and
with Messrs. Heal and Company, of North Shields, the
plaintiff's agents, who had undertaken not to part with the
acceptances, on account of the freight, which was also in
their hands, without seeing that the balance of their pur-
chase money was paid. On the 12th of January, 1858,
Currie mortgaged the ship to the defendant Gibson for
£1,500. A short time afterwards £l,OBO, part of the
mortgage money, was paid by Gibson at Currie's request to
Messrs. Bramley-Moore and Co. The balance of the
amount of the purchase money amounted to £7OO. In
February the ship sailed, and meeting with stress of wea •
ther became leaky, and it was necessary to take her to
Penzance, where she was partially repaired. On the 12th
of July, 1858, the mortgagee's power of sale became exer-
ciseable, and a short time afterwards he took possession of
the ship, and completed the repairs. On this the
plaintiff filed his bill praying for specific perform-
ance of the charter-party, and an injunction against
Gibson to restrain him from interrupting the voyage
or selling the ship without giving notice to the
charter parties. On the 12th November last the plaintiff
applied to the Vice-Chancellor for an injunction against
Gibson, which was refused. An appeal was taken to the
Lords Justices, who, on the 17th December last, reversed
the decision of the Vice-Chancellor, and granted an injunc-
tion restraining Gibson and his agents from removing the
vessel to Newcastle, or interfering to interrupt the voyage
to Suez, the plaintiff undertaking to answer any order that
the Court might make as to damages. The injunction and
undertaking was to last till the hearing of the cause. On
the hearing of the cause, the Vice-Chancellor adhered to
the opinion that he had formed in the first instance,
and made the decree complained of, dismissing the bill
with costs as against Gibson. The plaintiff appealed, and
the case was heard last term and stood over for judgment,
which was delivered this morning.
The Lord Chancellor considered that there was not a case
before him in which he could decree specific performance of
the charter party. The charterer had a choice of his ship
and the sailing master. The ship was disabled, and
Currie was not able to pay the expense of repairs.
It was no answer to say that another ship might
have been engaged to perform the voyage. The
charter party was put an end to by the inability of the
parties to perform it. His lordship for the same reason
cotdd not grant an injunction against Gibson. When he
found the charter parties were not able to perform their
contract, he was entitled as mortgagee to take possession o
the ship.

His Lordship affirmed the decision of the Vice-Chan-
cellor, and dismissed the appeal with costs, and also re
witted the case to the Vice-Chancellor to dispose of any
claims arising under the plaintiff's undertaking before the
hearing of the cause as to damages.