Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Subject_1 Ship Subject_2 Sale Subject_3 Proof Subject_4 Evidence — Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (57 and 58 Vict. cap. 60), sec. 24 (1).
Sale — Trust — Agent and Principal — Mandate — Act 1696, cap. 25. Facts: The Merchant Shipping Act 1894, section 24 (1), enacts—“A registered ship or a share therein (when disposed of to a person qualified to own a British ship) shall be transferred by bill of sale.”
Held that a contract for the sale of shares in a ship need not, notwithstanding the above enactment, be in writing, and could be proved by parole evidence.
The Act 1696, cap. 25, enacts—“… No action of declarator of trust shall be sustained as to any deed of trust made for hereafter, except upon a declaration or backbond of trust lawfully subscribed by the person alleged to be the trustee, and against whom, or his heirs or assignees, the declarator shall be intented, or unless the same be referred to the oath of party simpliciter .”
Shares in a ship had been transferred to the name of a purchaser who as was averred had been instructed to acquire the shares for another. In an action to have the purchaser ordained to execute a valid transfer in favour of that other, held that the Act 1696, cap. 25, did not apply, as the contract between the parties was one of mandate, which could be proved verbally, not one of trust.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.