The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-10-11
Firsts District Court.

-
First District Court.
Before Judge Green.
MPoRTANr DECIsIoN-LIABILITY or STEAMBOAT
OWNERS FOR BAGGAGE ENTRUSTED TO THE CARE OF
HANDS EMPLOYED on BOARD OF THEIR BOATS:
OCT. 10.--.Jchn w. TnderhM James Mccullough,
and ohns.-Ths action is brought to the value
of carpet bag and contents placed on board the steam
beat Francis Skday owned by the defer dants at New
burg which the plaintiff was passenger from that
place bound to New York and lost delivered to
plaintiff The plaintiff proved that his wife took and
she placed her carpet bag containing certain wearing ap,
pare TO the value Of between $40 and $50 in the posses
sion of person having charge of the baggage board of
the boat, and who gave his card at the time of re-
ceving ithat arriving at the city of New York they
ascerained that the carpet bag had been lost.
The defendants counsel contend that they were not la
BILE nasmuch as Il plaintiff had entrusted his baggage
to the Of person who had given his card and that
plaintiff must look to him for its loss.
The Judge decided that the defendants were liable;
that they could not relieve themselves from liability by
permitting employed on board OF their boats to
furnish passengers with cards. and gave judgment for
plaintiff for $40 damages and costs
APPEAL IN ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF THE OWNER
OF SHIP FOR NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. or THIS ACT.
OCT. lS.-Eiishd -. Rachmdn John H. Mott
This Libel filed in the court below against the
of the ship Radius to the of S274 for neces
sary and provisions furnished the ship upon the
order of the master. She about entering upon
voyage from this port to Norfolk Va and thence to the
West Indies and credit was given for the bill Of supplies
until the OF the vessel from her voyage Jennet
the master, who ordered the supplies chartered her of
Ruckman, the owner on the 18th September 1851 for
month the charerer to keep the vessel in good repair
during the term and pay all bills and demands against
the and TO do all acts to her safety and
good condition. and deliver her in good order at the exp
ration Of the twelve months; ordinary and tear
ceepted There was also special stipulation that the
charterer to furnish the ship with all the requisite
stores s and also to bear the expenses Of her
navigation the vessel to be delivered into his possession
Tor his sole use and disposal during the aforesaid TERM
Leland and others being of the Radius sold her to
hickman the 25th September, 1851 which day the
sale was recorded, and the vessel registered in his
rarnp at
Iarty entered n'o between him and Jennett The
supplies in question were ordered by Jennett on the
18th q the month previous although they were not
delivered until the 25h The question in the case is,
whether not the owner is liable for them under the
the house Of S f. s. Bloomfield but in order that the
members OF the firm might be witnesses in the case they
TIE suit Is brought and one of the members Of this firm
is the proepa witness to sustain it. Jennett witness
for the defence states that at the time he purchased the
supplies, he informed he house that he had chartered
the ship for the voyage above mentioned and that he
wanted the food credit until the vessel returned which
agreed to- The vessel returned from her voyage in
February 1852, and afterwards the bill pre-
sented to him for payment but not paid. bloomfield
denies that ennet informed the time of the
purchase that he had chartered the vessel of Ruckman
for the voyage but admits that he told him at the time
the defendant negotiating for the purchase of the
vessel that the for the transfer had not been
pleed but that they would be in few days. and that he
ennet to be the He further that he
aed the delivery of all stores until the defendant became
the owner for the purpose Of securing his liability for
tie payment; and, that he had ascertane the title Of
the vessel perfected at the custom house before the
goods actusly delivered This is the substance of
the testimony in the that has any material bearing
upon the question involved although the examination Of
the witnesses has been extended in the below
most unreasonable and Improbable length. And, looking
at il in aspect in which II be viewed it il quite
clear that although Ruckman was the general owner of
the ship at the tme the supplies furnished yet Jen
nett who procured them himself the pro hdec
TIC, by virtue of the charter party and hence the person
1ss adj FIJI 81 Abbot D. 81, A. 4s and notes and
Webb Pierce before Mr. Justice Curtis Is Law Rep p
- He was not the master of Ruckman at the time, but
the master Of the vessel representing his interest
charterer. hickman had neither appointed him,
held him out to the public as the master Of ship over
which he had CONTROL and hence Jennet possessed
power to bind him as his agent This admitted by
the learned counsel for the hbellant the argument
but il insisted that, in the absence Of notice
of the charter party to persons furnishing the stores
il must be regarded as null and void under the
44o But assuming this to be So am satisfied that the
BIessrs. Bloomfield chargeable with notice. Besides
the positive testimony of Jennett it appears that they
made in respect to the fact Of the purchase of the
ship by Ruckman and of the transfer Of the title of
which ship Jennett was to become the master. Having
made his inquiry, they must have known the relation in
which he stood master of the ship or if they did Mt t.
the failure must he attributed to their negligence
After taking much pains to ascertain the point Of time
when the negotiation for the vessel was concluded and
Ruokman became owner TO charge him with the
stores previously ordered by Jenne. and the delivery de
Lye till lac would become the master it il difficult to
say that they not cognzant Of all the
connected with the tre nsacion; and Of consequence in
What relation he stood MS master of the vessel cannot
'oult, therefore, but that they properly charge
able With notice of this relation, If the fact at
all material.
The act Of July 90 1850 provides that bill of SALE
mortgage hypothecaton conveyance Of any vessel &c
shall be valid against any person other than the ganter
mortgagor, his heirs and devices and persons having
actual notice unless the thall be recorded in the
ofce Of the Collector &C. The second section provides
for the recording; and the third that the Collector shall
Keep index OF such records, inserting betically
tic Of the yender mOrgagor and Of the vendee
and mortgage, &c The argument is, that the charter
party Of ship like the one in question Is conveyance
within the first section Of the act and l., therefore void
a. the third person without notice unless recorded
and hence not in the way OF the belant There is
doubtedly plausbily in the argument to the
vet Tho instrument and well known in the
business Of commerce, and in The and
ployne Of ships, that if Congress had intended
to embrace H. 1t would have been most natural to have
mentioned il in terms And the phraseology Of vendor
and ytndee and morgaRor and mortgage. used in the
third section to designate every description Of convey
specified in the first sscacey appropriate language
IL represents charter party But be this as II may
and dc no, intend to express any definite opinion upon
it-it seems TO me quite clear conceding the
sucon concnded for the only consequence would be to
subject the ship to liability ia favor Of third persons the
same II conveyance had been made. Recording
relate to conflicting interests and liens acquired in
and upon lands and chatte and designed to regulate
the As in the present case ii the Megsrs Bloom
nshed previous uhrecored conveyance by the master
would be postponed. 1hsi the lStent OF the act la my
Judgment II hasnothng to do with the personal liability
Of the nef the ship u is important when the
ton relates interest IL claim upon The ship it,
telf but rot othefwe. In any view, therefore, that
lave been able 10 take Of the case ,hLhe decree Of
the coui' below erroneous and must be reversed with