- Jan 21, 2016
- 349
- 841
- Detector(s) used
- underwater
- Primary Interest:
- Shipwrecks
The legal cases taht surround Captain John Limbrey and his charter of a ship the Merchant Royal for fifteen months, although by the time of the vessels sinking, its captain John Limbrey’s charter had expired, as at the time of the vessel’s loss Limbrey had the ship on a trading expedition for forty-four months.
Of information relating to the Merchant Royall the court case taken to the Kings bench in the house of lords confirms the existence of a ship called the Merchant Royall and a captain John Limbrey. The grounds by which the case taken against the owners of the merchant Royall was based on the fact that the ship had sunk due to the claim from John Limbrey that it was not seaworthy.
The legal case of the Merchant Royall, Limbrey verses Langham took place in a very turbulent time in English politics, Over the winter of 1641-2 relations between King and Parliament broke down entirely which led to a civil war in 1642 that lasted to 1651.
The case had arisen over the contract of charter between London Aldermen John Langham and Sir John Cordell and a group of merchants led by Captain John Lymbrey. Langham and his partners had leased the Merchant Royal under contract, to Lymbrey and his partners Arnold Brames and John Cardock who were London merchants, the contract chartered the merchant Royall to trade overseas for fifteen months . Lymbrey’s expedition lasted some four years and on his final voyage home the ship was lost.
Langham and his partners subsequently took a case against Limbrey for breach of contract in Common courts and sued for the loss of their ship, although they abandoned the case when they realized the case would only be heard by one judge.
Lymbrey then sued Langham, it seems there where three cases that Limbrey lost, in the common courts, there is also the suggestion that Limbrey considered that Langham and Cordell had influence over the common courts as Langham was an alderman in London’s council and Cordell served in parliament as an MP.
Limbrey therefore took the case to take the King's Bench in the house of lords to recover the cost of the lost freight, alleging that the ship was not fit for sea. At that point, Langham petitioned the House of Lords, requesting that the King's Bench proceedings would be halted and dismissed, this case proceeded through the house of lords from October 1643 to August 1647.
In 1643 the lords agreed to hear the case and it was sent to a select committee of the house for hearing. Limbrey was successful in his case and secured 18000L for loss to himself and his merchants. Langham then appealed the case back to the Kings bench the case went on through the house of lords until 1647 when the case was dismissed from the house of lords as Limbrey had won the case in 1643 the appeal to the House of Lords by Langham were found to have broken a statue law of the house, that prevented an appeal to the Kings bench after a case had been tried at committee level in common law.
The court case opens up one quite simple question why there is no mention of the king of Spain and the enormous wealth the Merchant Royall reportedly was transporting on behalf of the king Philip IV. Another detail that arises from the case is the fact that it is stated in the house of commons Journals that the case arose from an incident in late 1630, s. The money awarded to Limbrey would cover his reported wealth of 10,000L, and possibly the merchant’s loss, and of course the king of Spain was insured by Dutch and Italian insurers so in terms of the Kings money bullion and jewels they would not have been relevant to a claim against the Merchant Royalls owners, But still no mention at all.
Of information relating to the Merchant Royall the court case taken to the Kings bench in the house of lords confirms the existence of a ship called the Merchant Royall and a captain John Limbrey. The grounds by which the case taken against the owners of the merchant Royall was based on the fact that the ship had sunk due to the claim from John Limbrey that it was not seaworthy.
The legal case of the Merchant Royall, Limbrey verses Langham took place in a very turbulent time in English politics, Over the winter of 1641-2 relations between King and Parliament broke down entirely which led to a civil war in 1642 that lasted to 1651.
The case had arisen over the contract of charter between London Aldermen John Langham and Sir John Cordell and a group of merchants led by Captain John Lymbrey. Langham and his partners had leased the Merchant Royal under contract, to Lymbrey and his partners Arnold Brames and John Cardock who were London merchants, the contract chartered the merchant Royall to trade overseas for fifteen months . Lymbrey’s expedition lasted some four years and on his final voyage home the ship was lost.
Langham and his partners subsequently took a case against Limbrey for breach of contract in Common courts and sued for the loss of their ship, although they abandoned the case when they realized the case would only be heard by one judge.
Lymbrey then sued Langham, it seems there where three cases that Limbrey lost, in the common courts, there is also the suggestion that Limbrey considered that Langham and Cordell had influence over the common courts as Langham was an alderman in London’s council and Cordell served in parliament as an MP.
Limbrey therefore took the case to take the King's Bench in the house of lords to recover the cost of the lost freight, alleging that the ship was not fit for sea. At that point, Langham petitioned the House of Lords, requesting that the King's Bench proceedings would be halted and dismissed, this case proceeded through the house of lords from October 1643 to August 1647.
In 1643 the lords agreed to hear the case and it was sent to a select committee of the house for hearing. Limbrey was successful in his case and secured 18000L for loss to himself and his merchants. Langham then appealed the case back to the Kings bench the case went on through the house of lords until 1647 when the case was dismissed from the house of lords as Limbrey had won the case in 1643 the appeal to the House of Lords by Langham were found to have broken a statue law of the house, that prevented an appeal to the Kings bench after a case had been tried at committee level in common law.
The court case opens up one quite simple question why there is no mention of the king of Spain and the enormous wealth the Merchant Royall reportedly was transporting on behalf of the king Philip IV. Another detail that arises from the case is the fact that it is stated in the house of commons Journals that the case arose from an incident in late 1630, s. The money awarded to Limbrey would cover his reported wealth of 10,000L, and possibly the merchant’s loss, and of course the king of Spain was insured by Dutch and Italian insurers so in terms of the Kings money bullion and jewels they would not have been relevant to a claim against the Merchant Royalls owners, But still no mention at all.
