Page images
PDF
EPUB

trade understood the science of navigation, and that this fact was generally known in New York, and it was proved to the satisfaction of the court and jurý upon the trial, that the master was competent for the voyage though he was not a scientific navigator, and his competency as master in reference to the voyage was submitted at the circuit or nisi prius court in the city of New York to a jury, and a verdict found for the plaintiff. On motion for a new trial before the supreme court, the question was ably discussed by a first commercial counsel in the city and the verdict sustained.

I presume that there is not any material difference in the usage and customs of commerce between voyages from Quebec and from St. Johns, Boston, or New York, to the southern states, and the West Indies, and back again; that, generally speaking, a similar spirit of economy and enterprise prevails in the outfits as to the competency of the master and crew in science and numbers. The case before me states that it was testified by several masters of ships not to be an unfrequent case that mates of vessels were without the knowledge of navigation, and that this was not deemed essential to the discharge of their duties as mates. This fact is of decisive moment in the case, and shews that the usages and sense of the mercantile community are the same at Quebec and New York. The schooner Industry in the present case was extremely well equipped for a vessel of her tonnage and character; she had a competent master and mate and a crew of ten men for the return voyage, and to deny the rights of recovery on the ground that the mate did not unite with his competent qualifications as mate the superior qualifications of a master, when he was only called to act as mate and could not act in any higher character, would appear to me to be repugnant to the contract, and to justice.

The original master was discharged by the supercargo at Montego bay, and we are to presume for sufficient cause and certainly in good faith, and the case states that the new master (Dixon) and the supercargo made deligent search and inquiry, but without success, for a new mate competent to navigate; and the seaman that was taken for that purpose from necessity was fully competent to

[ocr errors]

act as mate though not as master. When all is done to supply any deficiency in the course of the voyage that due diligence dictates, it is all that is required therein. Phillips v. Headlam,' the ship was insured from Liverpool to Sierra Leone and at the mouth of that river there was a regular establishment of pilots. The vessel arrived off the harbor at 3 P. M., and hoisted the signal for a pilot; none came, and at 10 o'clock P. M., the captain judged it proper to attempt to enter without one, and the ship took ground and was lost. It was left to the jury to determine whether the master did what a prudent man ought to have done under the circumstances, and a verdict was found for the assured. On the motion for a new trial the king's bench held that the captain, being a person of competent skill, and having used diligence in seeking a pilot and exercising his discretion in good faith, did all that could be required by law, even if he acted erroneously, and the insurer was liable for the loss.

The doctrine of that case is strongly applicable here to the conduct of the supercargo in his selection of the new mate at Montego bay, and I have no doubt that under the circumstances of the case before me the insured in the policies on the vessel and on the cargo are entitled to recover. The construction of the warranty of seaworthiness is understood to be the same on the ship, freight, and cargo.1

OPINION OF SIR JOHN CAMPBELL.

This resolves itself into a question of fact for a jury rather than a question of law. I conjecture that a jury would find the underwriters liable if it should appear that in such a vessel (a schooner ot 156 tons,) the master was well qualified to take observations and make nautical calculations, although the mate could not do more than discharge the duties belonging to good seamanship. The vessel could hardly be considered unseaworthy because the contingency of the master being disabled during the voyage was not provided for.

1 2 Barn. & Adolph. 380.

2 Taylor v. v. Sewell, 3 Marsh, R. 331; Merchants' Ins. Co. v. Clapp, 11 Pickering's R. 56.

LEGISLATION.

VIRGINIA. The general Assembly of this state, at its session which commenced Jan. 7, and terminated April 10, 1839, passed two hundred and seventy-eight statutes, one hundred and two of which are of a public and general nature, and fifteen joint resolutions.

Devises to Schools, &c. All devises or bequests of lands, tenements, hereditaments, goods and chattels, stocks and choses in action, hereafter given or made, for the establishment or endowment of any unincorporated school, academy, or college, for the education of free white persons, are declared to be good and valid, provided such devise or bequest be not made to any theological seminary. Chap. 12, §§ 1 & 7.

Absent Debtors. The provisions of law, in regard to the recovery of debts from absconding debtors, are extended to the recovery of debts not exceeding twenty dollars, from non-resident debtors. Chap. 64.

False or Fictitious Names and Firms. No person shall transact any business whatever in the copartnership name and style of himself and any other person, who is not liable for the debts incurred in the course of the business; and no person shall transact business in his own name, with the addition of the words " 'agent," or "factor" merely, without adding thereto the name of his principal, and no person shall transact business under his own name, with the addition of the words "and company," or 66 & Co.” unless some actual partner be represented thereby. And if any person shall offend against the provisions of this act, or either of them,

he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and for each offence shall be punished by a fine, not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars.

All property, debts, stock and choses in action acquired by any person trading or transacting business in his own name, with the addition of the words 66 66 agent," factor," 66 and company," or "&Co.," and who does not disclose the name of a principal, or partner, liable for the payment of all the debts incurred in the course of his business, shall, as to all creditors of such person, be taken to be his individual property, and liable to his debts, as if it were acquired solely on his own account. Chap. 72, § 1 & 2.

MICHIGAN. The legislature of Michigan, at the regular session thereof for the year 1839, passed one hundred and seventeen sta. tutes, and thirty-five joint resolutions.

Exemption from Execution. Private libraries, (including maps, prints, philosophical apparatus, and cabinet,) not exceeding in value, in the whole, one hundred dollars, and family portraits, are exempted from execution. No. 10.

Boats and Vessels. Every boat or vessel, used in navigating the waters of Michigan, is made liable:

1. For all debts contracted by the master, owner, agent, or consignee thereof, on account of supplies furnished for the use of such boat or vessel; on account of work done, or services rendered on board of such boat or vessel; on account of labor done or materials furnished by mechanics, tradesmen and others, in and for the building, repairing, fitting out, furnishing or equipping such boat or vessel.

2. For all sums due for the wharfage or anchorage of such boat or vessel within this state.

3. For all demands or damages accruing from the non-performance of any contract of affreightment, or of any contract touching the transportation of persons or property, entered into by the master, owner, agent or consignee of the boat or vessel, on which such contract is to be performed.

4. For all injuries done to persons or property by such boat or vessel, in all instances where the same is shown to have oc

curred through the negligence or misconduct of the master or

hands thereon employed.

Any person having a demand as aforesaid, may institute a suit against the boat or vessel, instead of the master, owner, or consignee, at his option. No. 43, §§ 1 & 2.

Imprisonment for Debt and Fraudulent Debtors. § 1. No person shall be arrested or imprisoned on any civil process issuing out of any court of law, or justices' court, or on any execution issuing out of any court of equity, in any suit or proceeding instituted for the recovery of any money due upon any judgment or decree founded upon contract, or due upon any contract express or implied, or for the recovery of any damages for the non-performance of any contract.

§ 2. The preceding section shall not extend to proceedings as for contempt to enforce civil remedies, nor to actions for fines and penalties, or on promises to marry, or for moneys collected by any public officer, or for any misconduct or neglect in office, or in any professional employment.

§ 3. In all cases where, by the preceding provisions of this act, a defendant cannot be arrested or imprisoned, it shall be lawful for the plaintiff who shall have commenced a suit against such defendant, or shall have obtained a judgment or decree against him in any court of record, or justices' court, to apply to any judge of the court in which suit is brought, or to any justice of the peace, before whom such suit has been commenced, or such judgment has been obtained, or the justice of the peace before whom such proceedings may have been transferred, for a warrant to arrest the defendant in such suit.

§ 4. No such warrant shall issue unless satisfactory evidence be adduced to such officer, by the affidavit of the plaintiff or of some other person or persons, that there is a debt or demand due to the plaintiff from the defendant, and specifying the nature and amount thereof, as near as may be, for which the defendant, according to the provisions of this act, cannot be arrested or imprisoned, and establishing one or more of the following particulars :

1. That the defendant is about to remove any of his property

« PreviousContinue »