New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-07-28
law INTELLIGENCE
COURT OF COMMON PLrAs-sPteI.L TEs~-Befor, Joiss


COURT OF COsMON PLTAS-sPGcTAL TEsS-Befors Joiss
Les,.t J. aoS,r.v John Coin.u ard Henry Holdrsdss
Action 10 - $40 for nifty eight days demurras
in virtue OF contract entered into between pianth AMI
def udsuts the eOh OF January. l-50 FOX the charter OF
the bark John Rehrmau for voyage from New ORR
San Francisco, the defendants engaging 10 furnish
full cargo 90 merc sndise. with the exception OF desd
weigh, for baas. and agreeing pay 10 plaintiff for tho
u,e OF the said vessel during the voyage n the rate OF
sixy cents rer cubic foot without prmage. IL was also
screed hsthe lay days for loading and dchsrging com
mencing from the time the Captain reported himself ready
to receive discharge cargo shoet he 100 RUNNING lay
davs and that for each and every day detention by de-
fsl, the would paw 20 the plaintiff - per day
The complaint showed that the 10Th OF March 1850 the
baik sailed from New iok for san Francisco with This car
gnon board and that about the st ~ December fo
lcwpc she arrived az her destnsiiOn that her captain
~as thea ready deliver the cargo but the defendants
neglected 10 receive or discharge the same ana ud NOT
pay the freight that due whereby the sad DARK WA
detained ft,y eight Gfer the tune allowed or spec
fed The plaintiff claimed deuurrage for these MY
eight days the rate - e per day making the sum ot
$500 The defense up that the delay in the delivery
of the cargo occasonCi by the plaintiffs agent AMI
that they defendants were NJ, liable.
In this case Judge Woodruff delivered the following
opinion:
Ny conclusion this L. that the defendants being
entitled ieain the ship at San Francisco FOR sixysx
DAYS ithout payment OF demurage they were entitled
To The benefit during that period Of the chance hope
that the of the goods would pay freight therefor
in defiant thereof that the proceeds of the goods on saa
would sufficient 10 pay the full freight and therefore
although r. between the master and the owner OF the
goods the former not bound 70 wait after the eNpra
IF DAYS mentioned IN the BILL Oi ladng
vet rs between the plaintiff aud defendant such sale
youi have been AZ The peril oi the former Il
il did not produce full freight. That il was the
duty Of the defend have here restored the ship
10 the plaintiff ut the end of the period allowed
FOR demurr1ge ami delay caused by failure 81 con
sign,es 10 receive their goods and pay freight
the fau, of the defendants charterers. Although tho
plaintiff accepted bills of ladng a. payment tor freight or
charter money expressed Ia be without prejudice
10 the charter party 80 that all the obligation of the de
ndsuis M chserers remained in full force except that
20 the extent of the bills OF aiing they had received
credit the charter money with like effect As charter
money paid in advance But tho defendants are not
~ poi -ible for 'essaTy unreasonable delay
after the reserved period had expired A. between tho
spowner and char;ertr il the duty of the master
a. agent for the paiuTs to act with just regard to the
rchts and liabilities of the defendants, and that required
him 10 sell the cargo ami discharge as soon as reason
ably could he done after the period allowed for amurags
evnir@d This he did though he bought II in himself
in that purchase he in wise acted "a the agent tor
the charcrers such ami the circumstance that ths
defendants had interest IN the recovery ot tuh
eight WIS sufficient 10 warrant him IN OBTAINING tho
clip a. their expense al certain loss OF 60 per day-cet
,oniy not I'm case in which il is not shown that hore WA
the ghte. reason believe that the sale was not IN all
respects udoiOs at the price bcn tor the goods on tho
81 of February when the master instead OF accepting tho
bid became the purchaser htnsclt There Is nothing IN
TIE relation Of the defendants to HIM when lothcd hm
with authority make such purchase on their account
aud dtan the p az their expense IN 'he hope OF doug
better Indeed IL quite apparent from the whole case,
tba epir tic goods in the hope OF doing better meant
obtaining approximation to the freight due TO tho
partn although might result if the defendants were.
N The r,ear,ime losers of s3j per day for the plaintiff
h+ r6f The ma.er had no such authority speculate
fo- n. plantiti benefit the defendants cost. The
res iy which the decided u this; The master was
bound 10 sell the cargo within reasonable time after the
LAY GAYS expired AMI any delay beyond that was not
the iaui of The defendants Tor which they be charged
under the charter perty. AMER sale, the master had
reasonable tine % deliver the lumber 20 the purchaser.
and any delay beyond such reasonable time was not thi
fault Of the defendants That whoever became the pnt-
chaser such reasonable lme should be allowed The ob.
ect being discharge the cargo ana restore the Use Oh
lie hip unenoumbered 10 her owner the master or mo
plaintiff was entitled 10 the same period To discharge ina
lumber as f had been sold 10 third person mat inc
master has ing in fact sold put up the property al auc
ton upon lue notice and the Sd of February and hsy
ing become the purchaser that day il his duty
purchaser whether acting in his right or agent for
the plaintiff for plaintiff and defendants jointly -
] have Immediately discharged the cargo ahOughfw0 OF
the lay days remained unexpired. His relations to the
property al wholly changed and If the interest OF
the defendants ia the freight and the exgency IN when
the muster found himself be deemed 10 give him author
it, 70 make such purchase for the benefit or for the DC
count Of both parties which think il did not he had no
rght continue 10 the ship As sOrehouse al the
! defendant sole cost. while waiting for higher prices
The master ought then 20 have discharged the cargo
Immediately after the Sd Of February, and 10 have
completed IL within a reasonable time Upon tia evi-
denee submitted, find matter Of fact that thirty
two days were sufficient for that purpose aud was
not unreasonable. Though the Witnesses dlfer
on the subject, | think the balance Of evidence IA
that the time actually employed IN dschagng was Rot
after the Cd February and deducng two days for lay
da,. not then expired makes the necessary period Of
deduction until tie eth Of March, thirty days for
which the sum stipulated should be allowed
A AZ s95 'hs ' an On hat Wit 7th Of Mach
1881 ALLOW Interest from that day amounting to - ~
And order Jgis.a for psia'e -
. h.. 80 4 =