Case ID: johns_7/html/0311-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Schemerhorn and others against Loines and others.
    NEW-YORK,
    Nov. 1810.
    Where a person supplied stores to a ship, of which there were several owners, on the order of one of them, who acted as ship’s husband, and took liis note in payment, and gave a receipt in full, it was held to be no discharge of the other owners, especially, as it did not appear that the plaintiff knew, at the time, that there were other owners.
    THIS was, an action of assumpsit, brought to recover the price of certain articles of ship chandlery, supplied by the plaintiffs, as ship chandlers, in May, 1806, for the ship Eleanor. The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Yates, at the New-York sittings, in December, 1809.
    The goods were furnished by the plaintiffs for the use of the ship, between the 16th and 27th May, 1806, and were delivered to Benjamin Lord, the master and one of the defendants. The articles were ordered for the use of the ship, by George Townsend, since deceased. The articles were charged in the books of the plaintiffs to the debet of the “ ship Eleanor, Mr. George Townsend and owners.” No time of payment was mentioned, but the usual credit on such goods is six months. The defendants, Richard Loines, James Loines and Benjamin Lord, and George Townsend, were the owners of the ship, at the time the articles were supplied by the plaintiffs.
    The plaintiffs, on the 20th October, 1806, took from George Townsend, who was the ship’s husband, his promissory note, payable in 90 days, for the amount of the account, and gave him the following receipt. “ New York, October 20, 1806, received of Mr. George Townsend his note of this date at ninety days, for two hundred and thirty-two dollars thirty-two cents, in full for supplies of ship Eleanor.”
    
      Townsend died the 2d December, 1806, and continued to pay his notes until the time of his death; but his estate afterwards proved to be insolvent. The clerk of the plaintiffs testified, that when he delivered the goods, and when the note was taken from Townsend, and the receipt given, he did not know that either of the present defendants was owner or interested in the ship, and that he did not believe that the plaintiffs had any knowledge of that fact, at that time; but were referred to the defendants as part owners, by the administrator of Townsend, some time after his decease. It was proved that the ship Eleanor, in May 16, 1806, was advertised in the gazette, for Liverpool, for freight or passage, and application was requested to be made to Capt. Lord, on board, or to J. & R. Loines, or to George Toxvnsend; and this gazette was regularly taken at the store of the plaintiffs, during the year 1806 ; but it was not proved that either of the plaintiffs had áctually seen or read the advertisement.
    A verdict was taken for the plaintiffs, by consent, subject to the opinion of the court, on a case in which the above facts were stated.
    
      S. Jones, jun. for the plaintiffs.
    The defendants were owners of the ship at the time the supplies were furnished, and must be liable, unless the plaintiffs have done some act to discharge them.
    The taking the note of Toxvnsend, who was a part owner and ship’s husband, and giving him a receipt in full, is no payment or discharge of the original debt.
    
    The giving a further credit of 90 days, beyond the usual term, can have no other effect than to enlarge the time of payment, as it respects the parties liable in the first instance. The plaintiffs have shown, as far as it was possible, that when they took the note, they did not know that there were other owners.
    
      Wells, contra.
    The original liability of the defendants, as part owners of the vessel, is not denied; but we contend that the plaintiffs, by their own act, have discharged them. The entry in the books of the plaintiffs shows that they were aware of there being other owners; and the advertisement and public notoriety of the fact, repels any inference of want of knowledge on their part.
    If they did not mean to look to Toxvnsend alone, why did they not inquire of him, at the time, as to the other oxvners? The plaintiffs took the note in full pdyment for the goods; and meaning to take the risk of its payment. The extension of the term of credit also shows this intention. If this had been the note of a stranger or third person, it xvould be considered as giving a new credit, and a discharge of the original debtors; and Townsend, in this transaction, may be considered as a third person. Again, the rights, of the defendants are affected by the credit given to Townsend; for if they had been called on for payment at the end of the six months, Townsend would have paid his proportion ; but the loss, as it respects him, has been occasioned by the act of the plaintiffs.
    Jones, in reply,
    observed, that in Reed v. White and Others, a nisiprius casé, before Lord Ellenborough and a special jury, itxvas decided that if a person supplies stores to a ship owned by several persons, and takes in payment the bill of the ship’s husband and part owner, and settles with him alone, and afterwards renexvs the bill, he discharges the other owners; but in that case the other owners, being ignorant of the dealings between the plaintiff and the ship’s husband, had suffered him to receive large sums of money as freight, which they would otherxvise have detained; and the renexval of the bill showed clearly the intention of the plaintiff to adopt him as the single debtor.
    
      
      
        Tobey v. Barber, 5 Johns. Rep. 68.
    
    
      
       5 Esp. Cas. 122.
      
    
   Per Curiam.

The defendants were liable as owners, and the plaintiffs .have done nothing to discharge them. The taking of the note of Townsend, and giving a receipt in full, is no extinguishment of the original debt, unless the note was paid. There is no evidence that the plaintiffs knew that the other defendants were part owners. The case of Reed v. White proceeds on the ground that the plaintiff had taken the ship’s husband, exclusively br his debtor, knowing there were other owners, and after a settlement of accounts between them and the ship's husband.

The plaintifTh are entitled to judgment.

Jud~ment for the plaintiffs~