Case ID: johns_14/html/0185-01.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

Thomas against M'Daniel.
    NEW-YORK,
    May, 1817.
    A receipt by iwi full theThipt £wne°®c!orro"S ‘fuar alZ full compensation for every thing ficiént evidence p°eaSor Pacco«z and satisfaction, in an action or assault and bat- <«■», brought by oftíe ™¡pl “{JmSterSth“'he'liatTe“ Jeceipt^ itfirat, refu=a<5
    IN error, on certiorari, to the justice’s court of the city °f mitted on board of the vessel at sea. not guilty ; and, also, accord and satisfaction. New-York. MlDaniel, a seaman, brought an action against Thomas, the master of a ship, for an assault and battery com-The defendant pleaded
    On the trial, the assault and battery were proved; and the defendant, in support of his second plea, gave in evidence a • . 11 • , „ 1 ° receipt in the following words, viz. New Yor/c. March 30th, r ° . 1816. Received from captain J. B. Thomas sixty dollars and fifty cents, in full of all demands against the ship Independence, her officers and owners, for wages; also, one dollar as a full compensation for every thing else. James BTDaniel. Witness, Jos : Morrison.”
    The subscribing witness to the receipt testified that he explained the instrument to the plaintiff, by stating that the one dollar was intended as a full compensation for all other claims except wages, and that the plaintiff, at first, refused to sign the paper, and waited three or four days. The defendant then placed the money and the paper on the table, and told the plaintiff that he might sign, or not, as he pleased. The plaintiff then read over the paper and signed it, and recei^id the money; but nothing was said about assault and battery. A receipt in similar form was taken by the defendant from each of the crew.
    The court below gave judgment for the-plaintiff, for fifty dollars damages and costs.
   Per Curiam.

It is very questionable whether this receipt will bear any other construction than as an acknowledgment to the officers and owners of the ship of satisfaction for all claim? and demands against them jointly. But admitting that it im~~ ports an acknowledgment of satisfaction for all claims and causes of action against the captain, individually, there is strong ground to infer that it was unfairly obtained by him. It was coupled with a receipt for the wages of the seaman; and the evidence shows that his wages, after being liquidated at 60 dolt lars and ~o cents, were withheld by the captain, during three or four days, because the plaintiff refused to sign the double receipt. To a person in the situation of a seaman, just arrived in port after a long voyage, and, probably, without a cent of money, this was a fraudulent constraint on the part of the captain, from which the law will protect the seaman. It cannot be doubted, that if the wages had been unconditionally paid, the plaintiff would peremptorily have refused to sign the receipt for one dollar, "for every thing else." The judgment below must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.