Case ID: super-ct-jud_1/html/0187-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dunn vers. Scollay. ()
    
      Case of Hostage & Ransom.
    
    
      
      (1) This action was first brought in the Court of Vice Admiralty, to which Court a prohibition was issued and confirmed, on argument, by the Superior Court. See ante, p. 74. The plaintiff then brought his action in the Court of Common Pleas, and recovered judgment for £700; from which judgment the defendants appealed to this Court. From the various papers on file, it appears that the case was as follows:
      The Brigantine Peggy, belonging to John Scollay of Boston, consigned to Wm. Sitwell, London, was, on the 26th October, 1756, taken at sea by the French privateer Entreprenante, then returning from trading in negroes on the coast of Guinea. The captain of the Peggy drew a ransom bill on the consignee, and sent Dunn, the first mate, with the French captain as a hostage. The Peggy proceeded on her voyage, but again fell into the hands of the enemy, and was taken into Bourdeaux, where the captain died in prison. Dunn in the meanwhile had been committed to the prison of Bouffay at Nantz, where he remained in a lick and destitute condition. Sitwell claimed that the underwriters should pay the ransom money for his difcharge, but, as they refused, he wrote to Dunn, that there was “ no Way to compell them without Law, and that would be attended with great Uncertainty, as this, they say, is a Case has not been try’d ” — and also that he was instructed by Scollay to settle without regard to the ransom bill. He did, however, allow Dunn is per day for his support in prison. In a letter from Scollay to Sitwell, after the former had heard of the first capture and ransom, he claimed that, as he had given the captain no orders to ransom the vessel, if taken, the money must be paid either by the insurers or the captain; but, as the latter might not be able to do so, if the ship were lost, he directed Sitwell to insure for Dunn’s benefit the amount of the ransom money on the vessel and cargo, offering to be responsible himself for the premium. Before this letter was received, it is probable that news arrived of the second capture. Dunn remained in prison six years, and his final liberation is thus described in a letter from Sitwell :
      “Jno. Dunn, yt was Freeman’s Mate, has at length obtained his “ Discharge. His Friends compounded ye Affair for about £200, and “ have sent about a Subscription to raise ye Money. — I thought the “ Affair would have ended here, but his Friends are of Opinion “ yt ye Owners are liable to make good all Damages, & have advised “ him to go over & endeavour to recover it. They have taken ye Opin- “ ion of some of ye bell Counsel here, wch are in his Favour. — How “your Courts may determine this Affair, if it should come to Tryal, I “ know not.”
      From the authorities cited, it would seem probable that the case turned upon the question of the master’s power to bind the owner by a contrail of ransom, without special orders to that effect ; and, that the ruling of the Court was against the plaintiff, seems probable from the verdict, which was for the appellant, reversion of the former judgment and costs.
    
   AUTHORITIES in Favour of the Plaintiff were, Molloy (old Edit.) 205, § 10, 212, § 14, 213, § 14; Molloy (new Edit. 1744) 358, 237-8, 244-5; 2 Raymond, 931; Ld. Holt’s Opinion relied on; Sea Laws, 128.

1765.

In Favour of the Defendant were, 2 Chancery Cases, 239; 1 Salk. 35; 3 Bacon, 592, 595. () 
      
      (2) This list of authorities was at first supposed to refer to the former case, and was accordingly printed in a note to page 83.