account against the other Secundum Legem Mercatoriam but by the Rule of the Common Law if two men be joyntly seized of other goods the one shall not call the other to account for the same 2. If two Merchants have a joynt interest in Merchandizes if one dye the surviver shall not have all but the Executor of the party deceased shall by the Law-Merchant call the surviver to an account for the Moity whereas by the Rule of the Common Law if their be two joynt Tenants of other goods the surviver Perjus accrescendi shall have all 3. In an Action of Debt upon a simple Contract which is without a Deed in Writing the Defendant by the Common Law may wage his Law That is he may barr the Plaintiff from his Action by taking an Oath that he doth not owe the Debt but when one John Cumpton Merchant brought an Action of debt Secundum Legem Mercatoriam against another Merchant upon a Contract without Deed and the Defendant would have waged his Law he was not permitted so to do and the Judgement was given for the Plaintiff It is not hereby intended that the Courts of Common Law cannot or do not take notice of the Law-Merchant in Merchants cases but that other things likewise considered it might be thought reasonable if they so desire to allow them the choice of that Court where the Law-Merchant is more respected than to confine them to other Courts where another Law is more predominant Besides there may be danger of doubt thereof because those things are not approved for proofs at the Common Law which are held sufficient in the Admiralty amongst the Merchants for as Sir Iohn Davies further observes At the Common Law no mans Writing can be pleaded against him as his Act and Deed unless the same be sealed and delivered But in sutes between Merchants Bills of Lading and Bills of Exchange being but ticquets without Seals Letters of advice and Credence Policies of assurance Assignations of Debts all which are of no force at the Common Law are of good credit and force by the Law-Merchant To which may be added what Malines observes That the bearer of such Bills by the course amongst Merchants shall be admitted to demand and recover the Contracts without Letters of Atturney which is not admitted in the Common Law It is moreover considerable That the Law of the Sea looks one way when the Common Law looks another As for instance A Ship is Freighted or hired for a Voyage to the Indies at 20 l. per moneth by Charter-party it appeareth that having been eight Moneths in the Imployment of the Merchant who Freighted her before she makes any Port with her Lading she perisheth in the Sea in this case by the Common Law as it hath been averred the Owner of the Ship ought to have Freight for eight Moneths but by the Law of the Sea which hath alwayes been allowed The Merchant losing his goods the Owner loseth his Freight Again if the Owner loseth his Freight the Mariner although he escape loseth his Wages for the time he served which happily would not be thought so if he sued at the Guild-Hall for the same Thirdly for encouragement and advantage of those who use Navigation and Trade by Sea it is considerable That in the Court of Admiralty one and the same Action may be brought against diverse and several persons undertaking the same business as when many joyn in subscription to a Policy of assurance but if a sute be brought at the Common Law every man must be sued severally which the Parliament in the Act concerning assurances held inconvenient and in the like manner divers and several Persons may joyn in the same sute as Mariners for wages at a small charge to themselves with little prejudice to the Masters or Owners which are sued and obtain a Decree or Order all together whereas when they sue at the Guild-Hall every man sues severally to the great charge of every particular and to the excessive dammage of the Masters or Owners if Judgements be given against them Besides the inconvenience of which the Statute of the 28. of Hen. the 8. cap. 15. takes notice That if Mariners or Shippers which by reason of their often Voyages and Passages must depart without long tarrying and protracting of time be enforced to attend the ordinary terms of the Common Law Fourthly the Court of Admiralty for the conveniency and dispatch of Merchants and Sea-mens causes admits of proofs which the Courts of Common Law do not allow for in that Court according to the Civil Law the Plaintiff may be relieved by the Defendants answer upon Oath which in the ordinary Courts of the Common Law is not afforded Again whereas in those Courts the Evidence must be produced at the Barr before the Jury Sea-men and Mariners which are many times necessary witnesses for the reason before exprest cannot be present without great prejudice to themselves and the Trade of the Kingdome But in the Admiralty Court they may be produc'd at any time after the sute is begun and their Examinations being taken in Writing they have liberty to follow their own and the common occasions Moreover many times in causes concerning Navigation and Trade by Sea no proof can be made but by Witnesses remaining in Forein parts to which the Writs of the Common Law do not extend but those Witnesses by Commission out of the Admiralty Court are usually sworn and examined by Magistrates in those places and their examinations so taken are allowed for sufficient proof upon return Divers other instances might be given by which it would appear that the Court of Admiralty can give redress in Sutes concerning Navigation and Trade with more conveniency than the Courts of Common Law but these considered and how much it concerns the good of the Kingdome and those who sâ—pport Navigation and Trade may be sufficient to discover which Court may be best justified in proceeding in causes of that nature What inconvenience may follow both to the Private and Publick by the interposing of the Courts of Common Law and by obstructions made unto the Admiralty in such businesses may appear in one particular that is concerning Charter-parties and Freight due for imployment of shipping There is but one instance given of a Sute brought at the Common Law upon a Charter-party viz. the 28 of Elizabeth which was on the Merchants part for breach of Covenant viz. for not staying in a Port of discharge so many dayes as were agreed upon for which the Owner was condemned in 500 l. without any respect to the Loss or Damage which the Merchant had sustained And if it be considered how many clauses there are in Charter-parties and Covenants of things to be performed for which the Owners are bound under a general penalty if upon every breach advantage should be taken in extremity no man would have great comfort in hiring out Ships to the Sea And it may be observed that
themselves perswaded and would perswade others to be of that opinion but it is apparent that it is not the place only but the nature of the Case happening within such a place that makes the Jurisdiction and therefore if a Contract of Marriage or a Testament be made at Sea the Admirall claimes no conusance thereof which he might do if the place alone were sufficient to give the Jurisdiction and so Godfry in his Comment upon the Customes of Normandy saith that the Iurisdiction of the Marshal of France and of the Admirall are limited to certain Causes and matters whereupon it followeth that they cannot Iudge but of things of which the Conusance belongs unto them for their Iurisdictions are not regulated onely by the Territory or place but also by the Causes and matters over which a competent power is granted unto them And so Justice Reeves in an Argument in Communi Banco delivered that he differed in opinion from the Lord Hobard and affirmed that the Cause as well as the place gave Jurisdiction for if a man upon the Sea do seal a Lease or an Obligation the Common Law shall have the Jurisdiction and not the Admiralty because the Cause is not Maritime and this he sayes agrees with the Lord Hobard himself in Bridgemans Case and Sergeant Callis in his Readings doth acknowledge That the King rules on the Sea by the Laws Imperial and the Roll of Oleron and others But that is saith he in the Causes of Shipping and of Merchants and Mariners And whereas the Sergeant sayth well and I suppose no man will deny but the Civil or Imperial Laws the Roll of Oleron and others by which I suppose may be understood the Articles of the Inquisition of Quinborough are of force in the Admiralty of England For further Illustration that there are certain Causes properly belonging to the Conusance and Jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court of England It may be more particularly deduced and shewed from these several and respective authorities And first as touching the particular Causes which may be deduced from the Civil Laws some things have been allready shewed out of what the Romans derived from the Rhodian Laws and if any will be further satisfied he may find it perspicuously declared in a Tract De Iure judicio Maritimo wherein the particular Causes not only Civil but also Criminal concerning Navigation Negotiation by Sea are summarily set down with Relation to the Text of the Civil Laws And touching the Laws of Oleron which are lesse obvious it may be observed that the particular Cases therein are as first Touching Ships hired for Sea-voyages and their proceedings in the same 1 How Masters and Mariners are to be satisfied when the Merchant provides not his goods ready to be laden at the time agreed upon 2 How the Master ought to consult with his Company before he put out of the Harbour and proceed with their advice and what he is lyable unto if he do otherwise 3 How the Master ought to make satisfaction when the Merchant is prejudiced by his stay in any place and is not proceeding in the voyage 4 How the Master in case his Ship be disabled by some misfortune may repair it or hire another or if the Merchant refuse what fraight may be demanded Secondly Touching the safe keeping and delivering of goods received into the Ships 1 How the Merchant shall be satisfied if his goods be damnified in the Ship by evill stowing or other bad usage and how the Master and Company may clear themselves 2 How the Master and Company are lyable unto the Merchant if any goods brought into the port of discharge miscarry in the unlading by occasion of the Tackling or Cordage which are found unfit Thirdly Touching the Engaging of Ships or goods in case of necessity 1 First Whether the Master wanting means to proceed in his Voyage may sell or dispose of the Ship without Commission from the Owners and how and in what case he may Engage some tackle or furniture of the Ship 2 How far in case of necessity the Master may intermeddle with the Merchants goods and if he dispose of any how he is to make accompt and give satisfaction Fourthly Touching Contributions to be made for loss upon occasion of Common danger 1 First How the Master with advice of those in the Ship or otherwise in extremity of tempest may cast out some mens goods to save themselves and the rest and how average or Contribution is to be made 2 How the Master in the tempest cuting down his Mast and casting it over Board to save the Ship and goods ought to have satisfaction from those whose goods were saved Fifthly Touching damages done by or betwixt several Ships First How and in what manner the Damage is to be born when a Ship sailing into a Port bruizes or brâ—aks another Ship riding there at Anchor Secondly How if two Ships riding at Anchor in a Haven and the water being low the Master of the one observing some danger from the Anchor of the other may give notice thereof to the Master of that ship and if he neglect to remove it may cause it to be done by his own Company and if he be hindred therein and damage done what reparation may be recovered Sixthly Touching the charge for hiring of Pilots and their duty 1 The Master being bound by Charter-party to pay Pilotage in what places and how far he is bound thereunto 2 How far the Pilot is liable to make â—atisfaction of the ships miscarriage under his charge and whether he be bound when he hath brought her into the Harbour if she miscarry by misplacing there There be many other Cases contained amongst these Judgements of Oleron but these may suffice for our purpose As the Roll of Oleron doth contain Judgements or Verdicts especially in Civil Causes which did belong to Maritime Judicature so in the Inquiâ—ition at Quinborough are presented matters Criminal and Offences concerning which antiently inquiry hath been made in the Admiralty Jurisdiction which may be reduced into these heads as First Offences against the King and Kingdome as 1 Of such as did furnish the Enemy with Victuals and Ammunition and of such as did Traffick with the Enemies without special Licence 2 Of Traytors goods detained in ships and concealed from the King 3 Of Pirats their Receivers Maintainers and Comforters 4 Of Murthers Man-slaughters Maymes and Pety-felonies committed in ships 5 Of ships arrested for the Kings service breaking the Arrest and of Sergeants of the Admiralty who for money discharge ships arrested for the Kings service and of Mariners who having taken pay run away from the Kings service Secondly Offences against the Publick good of the Kingdome as 1 Of ships transporting Gold and Silver 2 Of carrying Corn over Sea without special Licence 3 Of such as turn away Merchandizes or Victuals from the Kings Ports 4 Of Forestallers Regrators and of such as use false Measures Ballances
goods aboard a Ship contrary to the Charter-party without any respect to the place where it was made if no reason can be shewed that Judgment may be thought not to have been grounded so much upon reason as it was upon the common received opinion of the meaning of that Statute as it is therein related quia contractus ille apud novam Sarum factus junctus fuit Touching that of the 28. of Elizabeth whereby Glynn was condemned to Constantine for breach of Covenant in a Charter-party in the summ of 500. l. it seems a Case far more reasonable though something grievous because it is not denied but that a sute upon a Charter-party may be commenced at the Common Law upon a penalty as it seems that was for breach of Covenant in not staying at Madrill so many dayes as were limitted by the Charter-party Only that is thought no concluding argument against a sute in the Admiralty for freight grounded on a Charter-party But whereas when in the Arrest of judgment it was alleged that the Trial was not sufficient because the issue did arise out of a place in a Forein Kingdome from whence no Jury by Twelve men might be had Sir Edw. Cook sayes that Sir Christopher Wray and the whole bench resolved That the Plaintiff should recover cost and dammages because the Charter-party was made at Thetford in Norfolk within the Realm it is as much as if Sir Edw. Cook had said that whether the suggestion in the issue were true or false tryed by a competent or incompetent Jury yet if the sute were brought upon a Charter-party the Conusance thereof did belong to the Common Law and whether the former Judges had proceeded well or not was not material so that what is premised formerly touching Judgments and judicial Acts in the First Chap. may from this case be excused And as touching the infinite prohibitions granted upon sutes commenced in the Admiralty concerning Charter-parties there may be something declared and made appear reasonable hereafter in an other place As to the instances of Policies of assurance held tryable at the Common Law although by the Statute of the 43. of Elizabeth it hath been shewed that the proceedings in those causes at the Common Law were altogether inconvenient to the Kingdome yet in regard Sir Edward Cooks reasons in Dowdales case for the maintaining of proceedings in such businesses may be applyed to other matters to the prejudice of the Admiralty Jurisdiction something may be observed concerning the same in Sir Edward Cooks reasons as first That the Assumpsit is the ground and foundation of the Action and that the Arrest or Imbargo in that case had been no ground of an Action if there had been no Assumpsit neither could the Assumpsit have produc'd an Action if there had not been an Arrest But what was the nearest and immediate ground of the Action without doubt the Arrest And what was chiefly in question not the Assumpsit for it was taken for granted that that was done in London but it was the Arrest which as it was declared was in issue And it is likely that the Common Law which intended a Trial of the Vicinage intended it of the thing or matter which was in issue to be tried But he further argues That the Trial must be of necessity where the Assumpsit is made for otherwise there could have been no Trial at the Common Law which might have savour'd of some reason If possibly there could have been no Trial in any other Court but the Cause being Maritime and amongst Merchants it might more properly have been tried in the Admiralty or in the Assurance Court without a Jury or Trial of Twelve men by witnesses as Fortescue acknowledgeth Thirdly touching that of the Book of 48. of Edward the 3. where it is said That if a Mariner make Covenant only to serve in a Ship on the Sea yet if the wages be not paid they shall be demanded in that Court by the Common Law not by the Law Mariner the occasion was that an action of debt being bâ—ought at the Common Law upon an Obligation dated at Harflet in Kent whereas in truth it was made in Normandy and the consideration was Service done in Warr in France thereupon one of the Judges said That the summ demanded growing due for Service done in Warr the Cause ought to be tryed in the Constable and Marshals Court Another as it seems willing to retain the cause said tâ—at he hired a man to go in a message to Rome although the service were done in another Realm yet what was due by covenant might be recovered in that Court Another said if a Mariner make a Covenant with one to serve in a Ship on the Sea yet if his wages be not paid they shall be demanded by the Common Law c. So that it is plain it was not a Resolution of the Court but a fuit dic as they say and one mans opinion by way of argument to another purpose And the ground thereof might be that if it were in issue whether such a Covenant were made it might be tryed at the Common Law but it doth not conclude but that if the Question were whether the service in the Ship were performed on the Sea it might more properly be tryed in the Admiralty Court For confirmation on this point First To the 4. Request of the Judge of the Admiralty to the Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench 12. May 1575. viz. That the Judge of the Admiralty may have and enjoy the knowledge of the breach of Charter-parties made between Masters of Ships and Merchants for voyages to be made to the parts beyond the Sea according as it hath been accustomed time out of mind and according to the good meaning of the Statute of 32. Hen. 8. chap. 14. though the same Charter-parties be made with in the Realm The answer is This is agreed upon for things to be performed upon or beyond the Seas though the Charter-party be made upon the Land by the Statute of 32. Hen. 8. chap. 14. Secondly it was agreed unto by all the Judges and Attorney General before the King and his Counsel That if a Sute be before the Admiral for Freight or Mariners wages or for breach of Charter-parties for Voyages to be made beyond the Sea although the Charter-parties happen to be made with in the Realm and although the money be payable within the Realm so as the penalty be not demanded a Prohibition is not to be granted But if the Sute be for the penalty or if the Question be made whether the Charter-party were made or not or whether the party did release it is to be tryed by the Kings Court at Westminster So that at first it be denied upon Oath that a Charter-party was made or a denial upon Oath tendred to which it may be added that it was there further agreed That if Sute shall be made in the Court of Admiralty for building
those matters which belong unto him onely upon the Sea the other Cases of double Damages for ought appears to the contrary might be for matters of Trespass committed likewise by Force and Arms. Touching Praemunires brought for suing in the Admiralty Court Sir Edw. Cook saith That they being brought upon the Statute of the 16 of King Rich. 2. for suing in Curia Romana aut alibi are so evident and of so dangerous a consequence as no application shall be made thereof And for the dangerous consequence it is most true for that the penalty intended in that Statute extends to the imprisonment of the person during pleasure and the loss of all his goods and of the profits of his Lands during life and for the application which he forbears it may be conceived that his meaning was that the Admiral or his Judge might be made liable thereunto but for the Evidence that by Curia Romana aut alibi the Court of Admiralty should be understood under his favour it is not so clear nor if the Statute be well considered can it with any reason be maintained the word Alibi or elsewhere in that Statute was in truth intended of Avignion in France or some other place to which the Pope and his Court in those times did usually remove and that Statute being intended to exclude the forein authority of the Pope it might be thought necessary to debar the people of this Kingdome from having intercourse to the Popes Consistory whether at Rome or any where else and when the Popes authority and his Laws were in force in this Kingdome and no way depending upon the Crown the word Alibi or elsewhere was held to extend to Bishops Courts if they medled with temporal causes belonging to the Kings Courts especially if they took upon them to reverse or disparage Judgements given in the Courts of Common Law but how the word Alibi should be applied to the Kings Court of Admiralty never relating to any Forein power and proceeding onely by those Laws which are allowed by the King to be in force in that Court it is a mystery beyond any ordinary imagination It may be further noted that although it be said that the two Praemunires were brought upon such occasions yet it doth not appear that any Judgement was given upon either of them Lastly For confirmation and conclusion of this Point it may be added that before the King and his Councel it was likewise agreed unto by all the Judges That the Admiral may inquire of and redress all Annoyances and obstructions in Navigable Rivers beneath the first Bridges that are any impediment to Navigation and passage to and from the Sea and also try all personal Contracts and injuries done there which concern Navigation upon the Sea and that no Prohibition is to be granted in such Cases That the Admiral of England may hold Plea of Contracts and other things done beyond the Sea relating to Navigation and Trade by Sea TO maintain that the Court of Admiralty may hold Plea of Contracts and other things done beyond the Sea It is alleged First That by an Ordinance made by King Edward the first and his Lords at Hastings which is extant in the antient Book of Admiralty it was ordained that Charum Contract c. That every Contract made between Merchant and Merchant or betwixt Merchant and Mariner beyond the Sea or within the flood-mark shall be tried before the Admiral and no wayes elsewhere Secondly It may be taken into consideration That such businesses amongst Merchants and Seamen are to be determined according the Civil Law and equity thereof as also according to the customes and usages of the Sea Mr. Selden in his Notes upon Fortescue observes out of Bartolus Quod in Curia mercatorum debet judicari ex aequo bono omissis juris solennitatibus which the Admiralty Judges may and do observe but the Courts of Common Law hold they must do otherwise Malines relates an instance of a Merchant-stranger who having sold Commodities to three several Merchants of London took one Bond of them all for the payment of 300 l. and one of them breaking and being imprisoned he was contented to compound with him for the fifth part of his Debt or for 20 l. in lieu of a 100 l. conceiving him as a third party to be liable for no more and having received that summ gave him a release and afterwards the two other parties neglecting to pay him their parts he was advised to sue them at the Common Law where he was given to understand That if a man release one of his debtors who is bound with others by way of acquittance they are all released and acquitted thereby which was contrary to the rule of Equity and that simplicity and just dealing which is expected amongst Merchants which do not admit that a mans action should operate beyond his intention and that a favour yeelded to one in necessity should not extend further to his prejudice in respect of those which were in better condition Thirdly to the like purpose it is observed that in Contracts and Bargains betwixt such persons those solemnities are not required which are necessary in Deeds at the Common Law as of signing sealing and delivering to make their Bills and Obligations of force and the bearers of such Bills according to the course of Merchants shall be admitted to demand and recover without Letters of Attorney Fourthly It is considerable that Instruments made beyond the Sea have usually Clauses relating to the Civil Law and to the Law of the Sea Malines shews That when two or three take up money at interest and all binde themselves as Principals generally according to the Civil Law and custome of Merchants every person is bound but for his own part and therefore where it is intended that for the better security every man should be bound in solidum in the instrument of the Contract ther is a declaration and renunciation made of all privileges and especially of those which are called Exceptio divisionis ordinis excussiones and beneficii Epistolae divi Adriani In Wests Presidents concerning Merchants affairs there are the like forms as where a man obligat se haeredes Executores suos omnia bona mobilia immobilia praesentia futura tam ultra quam citra mare ubicunque existentia renuncians omnibus singulis exceptionibus c. and amongst the rest he declares the form of a gneral procuration to sue for Debts in a Forein Country wherein it is specified that power is given ad Libelles Petitiones c. articulos dandum datisque respondendum ad Lites contestandum de calumnia vitandâ— juramentum in animam constituentium praestandum all which are as strange to the Law of this Land as the places from whence they proceed Fifthly For that as Fortescue affirms Contracts and Bargains made amongst strangers in another Realm must be proved otherwayes than in the Courts