Deviation. Under the contract of affreightment, if a vessel be compelled by stress of weather, or by a foreign enemy, or by any inevitable accident, to deviate from the appointed voyage, or to take refuge in a port not included in the destination, no claim thence arises at the instance of the freighter against the owners; and where the ship, in consequence of such accident, requires to be refitted, the master may now detain the cargo until the necessary repairs be executed, although formerly the rule was, that he was bound to find another ship in which to embark the cargo. Where the deviation is imputable to the fault of the master, the freighter has a claim for damages, in satisfaction of which he may retain the freight.
Definition source
Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Deviation.” Public domain.
Legal Subject: Deviation |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Archibald and James Robertson v. John Laird | 1793 | Insurance, Adjudication, Penalty, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Deviation | Archibald and James Robertson, insurance brokers in Greenock, petitioned the Court to alter a prior interlocutor pronounced in their action against John Laird, merchant there, regarding whether a voyage alteration had voided an insurance policy. The pursuers contended that a liberty to call at an English port imported a liberty to discharge at Hull by statute and custom, while Laird answered that the alteration rendered the policy void and subsequently denied that calling at a port implied any right to discharge there. The parties exchanged replies and duplies on the construction of the policy's port liberties and the validity of the coverage. |
| Cunningham & Co. v. Craigie | 1789 | Insurance, Arrestment, Deviation, Creditor, Debt, Prize | William Cunningham and Company, merchants in Glasgow, pursued Laurence Craigie and other insurers to overturn Lord Dreghorn's interlocutor that assoilzied the defenders, seeking recovery under a 1783 policy. The defenders answered that the policy was void for concealment of a voyage to Charlestown carrying British troops and for material alteration of the terms from a voyage to St Thomas. The pursuers subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor, while the respondents denied any knowing intent to deviate to Charlestown and maintained that the policy covered only the voyage to St Thomas with a convoy call serving as a risk-reducing clause. |
| John Steven and Company v. John Douglas | 1772 | Deviation, Insurance, Debt, Adjudication, Bill of Exchange, Proof | Defender John Douglas provided an insurance policy to pursuer John Steven and Company for a shipment of goods on the Belfast Trader. The planned shipment route was from Belfast to Greenock or Port Glasgow. Before the ship set sail, however, merchants in Stranraer requested that the ship transport some goods from Belfast to Stranraer. The owner of the Belfast Trader agreed to transport these goods. In the course of trying to reach Stranraer, the ship encountered a storm and sank off the coast of Girvan in Ayrshire. Douglas refused to reimburse Steven and Company. Douglas claimed that the voyage taken by the Belfast Trader was different than the voyage provided for in the insurance policy. Steven and Company sought reimbursement, arguing that the voyage to Stranraer on the way to Greenock or Port Glasgow was not a significant deviation from the original route. |
| Mackies v. Houston and Others | 1774 | Deviation, Arrestment, Bill of Exchange, Insurance, Fraud, Adjudication | Pursuers Alexander and John Mackies obtained insurance for their ship, the Marshall of Gardenston, and its cargo. Although the ship was bound for Dundee, it docked at Down (now known as Macduff) during the voyage, and the cargo was stolen by a mob. The pursuers applied to the insurance underwriters for indemnification and eventually brought suit against them. However, the underwriters argued that they were not required to pay because the ship-master had deviated from the insured voyage by going to Down and taking on cargo there. Relevant documents are reproduced in an appendix to the defenders’ court filing. |
| Marshall, Hamilton, and Company v. John Crawford and John Barns | 1786 | Insurance, Bill of Exchange, Suspension, Adjudication, Deviation, Sequestration | This case was about the interpretation of two insurance policies taken out by Messrs Marshall, Hamilton, and Company on the ship Ceres. One of those policies covered the Ceres and its freight until the ship reached its “port or ports of discharge in the West Indies”; the other policy covered the Ceres and a subset of its freight, a load of fish, until the ship reached “a market in the West Indies.” In Spring of 1784, the Ceres sailed from Greenock, Scotland, carrying beef, coal, and dry goods. The ship went first to St. John’s, Newfoundland, where it picked up the load of fish, and subsequently to the Caribbean, where it discharged the fish. The shipmaster, George Jamieson, then began taking steps to obtain a return freight to Britain. In the course of his efforts to obtain a return freight, Jamieson sailed to Jamaica and moored the Ceres in Morant Bay. There, the ship was wrecked in a hurricane. At the time of the wreck, the Ceres still contained beef, coal, and dry goods. Based on these facts, a dispute arose between Marshall, Hamilton, and Co. and its underwriters about whether, prior to the hurricane, the ship’s outward voyage had terminated under the terms of each insurance policy. |
Documents discussing this subject (24)
- Alexander and John Mackies v. Alexander Houftoun, James Stuart, and other underwriters — Information, 1 Feb 1774
- Alexander and John Mackies v. Alexander Houston, James Stewart, and others underwriters — Information, 12 Feb 1774
- Archibald and James Robertson v. John Laird — Petition, 24 Jan 1793
- Cunningham — Petition, 15 Jun 1790
- David Turnbull v. James Rankines, John Rankines and John Black — Answers, 2 Jan 1796
- James Scrimgeour and Son v. Mess. William Alexander and Sons — Memorial, 18 Jul 1770
- James Scrimgeour and Son v. Mess. William Alexander and Sons — Memorial, 18 Jul 1770 [2]
- John Crawford, junior, and others v. Messrs Marshall, Hamilton, and Company — Information, 14 Apr 1786
- John Milne and Others v. Alexander Pirie, William Read, William Thomson, and Peter Ritchie — Answers, 31 Dec 1818
- John Mitchell v. David Cable — Appendix
- John Steven and Company v. John Douglas — Petition, 7 Aug 1772
- LC Volume 03 — Petition, 8 Apr 1813 [2]
- Messrs Marshall Hamilton and Company v. John Barns — Answers, 23 Sep 1786
- Messrs Marshall, Hamilton, and Company v. John Crawford, junior, and others — Answers, 23 Sep 1786
- Mrs Anna Wedderburn Ogilvy of Ruthven and Husband v. James Lawson — Replies
- Peter Scott and John Gifford v. Miller and Kerr — Note, 19 Nov 1824
- Petition — Ed. Butterworth against Lord Meadowbank's Interlocutor
- Robertson — Petition, 18 Dec 1792
- Thomas Hart v. John Carruthers, William Carruthers, and Robert Johnstone — Replies, 15 Nov 1826 [2]
- William Alexander and Sons v. James Scrimgeour and Son — Answers, 24 Apr 1769
- William Cuningham and Company v. Laurence Craigie, Richard Allan junior, John Sheddan, George Hamilton, Wilson and Hamilton — Answers, 7 Jan 1790
- William Cunningham & Co. v. Laurence Craigie, Richard Allan junior, John Sheddan, George Hamilton, Wilson and Hamilton — Answers, 7 Oct 1790
- William Maxwell & Others v. Robert Brown Junior — Bill of Suspension, 29 Jun 1814
- William Maxwell, and others v. Robert Brown, Jun. — Answers, 5 Dec 1814
