M'Culloch Brothers and Bannerman v. Grieve and Others

“On the voyage from Montreal to Quebec, when opposite Cape La Roche, the ship grounded, and dragged over the ground for about two minutes, a pilot being on deck at the time, and the ship being towed by a tug-steamer. The ship indicated no appearance of being damaged, however, and she proceeded to Quebec.

The primary and substantial question, however, in the present case is, Whether the defenders are responsible at all for the loss sustained by the pursuers?

In support of their argument, and to show that the obligation of shipowners, as well as of carriers generally, is of a very rigid character, the pursuers referred amongst other authorities to Stair 1, 13, 3; Erskine 3, 1, 28; 1 ‘Bell's Commentaries,’ 446 Page: 51 ↓

As to the overloading of the Sir John Moore, the evidence adduced for the pursuers greatly outweighs, in the Lord Ordinary's opinion, that for the defenders. On this point he has in particular to refer to the evidence of Captain Grange, and the statement in the certificate given by him as port—warden of Montreal, at the time the Sir John Moore took in her cargo there. And with a deck-load of Page: 52 ↓

The defenders maintain that the interlocutor is wrong, inasmuch as it attributes any portion of the damage to any cause for which they are responsible; while the pursuers object to deduction being made from the amount of damages by reason of any contributing causes of damage. The pursuers say that they have established that the defenders improperly carried a deck load in the vessel, Page: 53 ↓