Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

of goods by the ship Hamilton from Bordeaux to Hali- CAZE & . fax.

RICHAUD v.

In the Court below a case was agreed by the parties, BALTIwhich was in substance as follows.

MORE INS. CO.

rata itineris, to

who is also

On the 28th of July, 1805, Mr. John Ducorneau, of Bordeaux, the agent of the Plaintiffs, shipped for them, not liable for there, on their account, on board the ship Hamilton, of freight pro which they were owners, a cargo of the value of the owner of $22,986 on a voyage from Bordeaux to New York where the vessel, the Plaintiffs resided. On the voyage she was captur- owner of the ed by a British vessel of war and carried into Halifax, cargo insured, where the ship and cargo were condemned. Within the vessel and due time after the Plaintiffs heard of the capture, they cargo were abandoned as for a total loss to the Defendants who ac- captured, the cargo abandoncepted the abandonment and paid the amount insured. ed to the un

in a case where

derwriters as

by them ac

cargo con

From the sentence of condemnation in the vice ad- a total loss and miralty Court as to the vessel and cargo, but not as to cepted, the freight, there was an appeal, upon which the sentence loss paid, the was reversed and the proceeds of the vessel and cargo demned, neswere restored. The proceeds of the cargo were paid tored upon apover to the underwriters; but the sum they received was less than the sum they had paid upon the policy.

The question, upon this case, was, whether the tiffs, who were owners of both vessel and cargo, entitled to recover from the underwriters upon the go, freight from Bordeaux to Halifax.

peal, and the proceeds of the cargo paid over to the underwriters.

Plain- Freight pro were rata itineris is car- the owner of the cargo voluntarily agree to receive it

not due unless

HARPER, for Plaintiffs in error, contended that they at a place short were so entitled.

The underwriters who became the owners of the cargo at Halifax, were benefitted by the transportation from Bordeaux. The cargo was liable for its frieght. The underwriters received the whole proceeds. So much thereof as amounted to the value of the freight was received by them to the use of the Plaintiffs as owners of the ship.

PINKNEY, Attorney General, contra.

This action certainly cannot be maintained upon an insurer's liability for freight under- a policy on cargo.

of its ultimate destination.

CAZE & The case of Baillie and Modigliani, 2, Marsh. 728, is BICHAUD decisive to that effect and even if an insurer were lia

T. ble for freight under the policy, he must be sued upon BALTI- that, and could not be made to answer for it in this form MORE of action. INS. CO.

But it is said that this claim does not rest on the policy; but founded upon the idea, that as the underwriters became proprietors (by the abandonment and acceptance) of the cargo, or rather of the proceeds of the cargo, at Halifax, they succeeded to the burthen as well as to the benefit, and must consequently pay freight pro rata itineris to the Plaintiffs as owners of the ship.

To this it may be answered, that if any freight was due, it was due from the Plaintiffs themselves, because it was earned while they were the owners of the goods, and because the abandonment could not throw upon the underwriters a responsibility for freight for which the assured were already liable. There could be no privity of contract between the insurers and the ship owners with reference to such freight; and the ship owners could have no lien on the proceeds arising from the sales under the condemnation.

But no freight was due. The goods belonged to the owners of the ship, and of course the bill of lading did not call for freight. On the contrary it declared that no freight was to be paid, "the cargo being owner's property." To imply a contract between the owners of the cargo and themselves to pay freight to themselves, and that two against the bill of lading, would be absurd. It follows. that at the time of the abandonment, the Plaintiffs had no right, either complete or inchoate to freight upon the goods insured. If it were even admitted, then, to the utmost extent contended for, that the insurers, accepting the abandonment, took the cargo cum onere, they could not be charged with freight in this case, since the thing insured was, when they succeeded to it, free from such a charge. If they became liable for freight they did not, take simply cum onere; for the onus relied upon by the Plaintiff's counsel did not exist when the subject-matter came to them by abandonment. The abandonment and acceptance must have created, not passed, it. If indeed the ship had afterwards per

v.

formed any service to the underwriters with respect to CAZE & these goods, an assumpsit might be implied pro tanto RICHAUD against them; but this demand is for freight supposed to have been earned while the goods belonged to the Plaintiffs, and were expressly, as well as from the nature of the transaction, excmpt from freight.

The doctrine of lien which has been spoken of by the Plaintiffs counsel cannot serve his cause; for the Plaintiffs could have no lieh for freight which was not due ; even if there could be a subsisting lien upon these proceeds, for freight which was due.

It may

But freight was not due, for other reasons. be conceded that freight is in some cases due pro rata itineris, where the voyage being intercepted, the owner of the cargo consents to receive it at a place short of its destination. But he must be a volunteer. A forced receipt, as on this occasion, has never been adjudged to give a title to pro rata freight. Besides, this cargo was lost; and even if the proceeds had covered the value, it may well he questioned, notwithstanding the dictum in Baillie and Modigliani, whether by taking the proceeds, the owner gives a right to pro rata freight.

But however that may be, it can scarcely be maintained that a forced acceptance (by the owner or by an insurer to whom an abandonment has been made) of proceeds far short of the value, (as was the fact here) will give such a right.

HARPER, in reply,

The case in Marshall wants the essential ingredient of ownership in the person making the abandonment. It was too a case of partial loss. The Defendants in the present case are sued, not as underwriters, but as owners of goods liable for freight. The benefit they receive from the transportation of the goods is a good foundation for an implied promise. The decision in Burrow's reports, of consent to receive the cargo liable pro rata itineris has never been questioned.

February 24th....STORY, J. delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:

[blocks in formation]

BALTI

MORE INS. CO.

1

CAZE &
The present action is brought to recover freight pro.
RICHAUD rata itineris, under the following circumstances:

v.

BALTI-
MORE

The Plaintiffs were the owners of the ship Hamilton and cargo, and effected insurance of her cargo on a voyINS. co. age from Bordeaux to New York. The sum of $11,000 was underwritten by the Defendants-the sum of $10,000 at Philadelphia, and the residue of the value of the cargo ($1986,) was left uninsured. During the voyage the ship and cargo were captured, carried into Halifax, and there condemned. The Plaintiffs, abandoned to the underwriters and received payment for a total loss. An appeal from the sentence of condemnation was interposed and the sentence finally reversed, and the proceeds of the cargo, which had been previously sold by order of Court, were paid over to the underwriters in proportion to the sums underwritten by them respectively.

We are all of opinion that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover in the present action.

It

In the first place the Court are satisfied that, as between the insured and the underwriter on the cargo of a ship, the latter is in no case responsible for the payment of freight, whether there be an abandonment or not. is a charge on the cargo against which he does not undertake to indemnify the owner; and if authority be necessary to support the position, it is fully borne out by the doctrine of lord Mansfield in Baillie v. Modigliani, Marshall, 728.

In the next place we are all of opinion that no freight whatsoever was, under the circumstances of this case, due. Freight, in general, is not due unless the voyage be performed. Here the ship and cargo never arrived at their port of destination, and of course the whole freight could not be due. Was a pro rata freight due? We think not. The whole class of cases resting on the authority of Luke v. Lyde (2 Burr. 882.) proceed on the ground that there is a voluntary acceptance of the goods themselves at an intermediate port; and not, as in the present case, a compulsive receipt from the hands of the admiralty after capture and condemnation, and ultimate restoration upon the appeal. There is, in our judgment, no equity to support such a claim; and although

it receive countenance from some remarks incidentally CAZE & thrown out in Baillie v. Modigliani, the current of RICHAUD more recent authority, as well as of principle, clearly points the other way.

2.

BALTI

MORE

It may be further added that as between the insured INS. CO. and the underwriter the existence of a lien on the cargo for freight does not vary the legal responsibility of the underwriter on such cargo after an abandonment.

[blocks in formation]

vessel for vio

THIS was an appeal from the sentence of the Cir- In a prosecucuit Court for the district of Maryland, reversing that tion against a of the District Court, which condemned the schooner Jane for violation of the non-intercourse act.

NICHOLSON, for Appellant,

lation of a law

of the United States it is not necessary to adduce positive testimony of the identity of

Contended that there ought to have been positive the vessel. proof of the identity of the vessel.

PINKNEY, Attorney General.

If these cases are to be likened to criminal prosecutions, and if the same strictness be required, it will be impossible to execute the laws. No proof was offered on the part of the Claimant. But there is sufficient proof of identity-she is the same kind of vessel, has the same name, belongs to the same port, has a master of the same name, had the same cargo, and the time of her sailing from Port au Prince, corresponded with the time of her arrival at Baltimore, allowing the usual time for performing the voyage.

« AnteriorContinuar »