The Portland daily press., 1866-10-11
crn him alone, but the Joint interests to be pro-

Germ him alone, but the joint interests to be pro-
NOTED by the charter party, and the transports,
tion thereby of the goods to Portland. oo n,,e
one must contract for this purpose, . 10
but Ferrff= was there in Cardenas au III or,
to contract and he did not CONTRACT ~ ~ e a.
behalf to carry his own goods Ga ~, rather acted
common property, but in my view ond lis 90.
in behalf of all interest ti rnmte exactly as his
ponartners here did, by procuring insurance.,
COP f,r themselves, but to cover the property
Il, ot the invoice for whom it might concern.
Enrri1, therefore was copartner author
;zed To enter into such an agreement as he
sbould think best for the transportation of this
cargo. he might contract to have all 60 ON deck
or all below deck as he thought most for the
common benefit, and any bargain he should
make in respect to it would not only be obliga-
tory upon him but would also bind his CO.
partners. He was their agent in these matters.
Whatever he did, he did for them as well as for
himself, and his knowledge and consent to the
casks being slowed on deck is theirs, and equal
ly obligatory and binding upon them as though
they had personally been present at Cardenas,
and assented to the shipment in that manner
BY the arrangement in the present case por-
ton of the goods being slowed on deck that
portion of the cargo which was below deck was
I taken at lower rate than it would otherwise
have been. The expense of sailing the ship
would be the same to the ship owner whether
he carried deck load or not, and having a full
cargo on and under deck the whole would be
taken at a less average rate OF freight than 1t
would have been if the ship owner was restrict
ed from carrying any portion on deck. Inc
claimants therefore got the benefit OF the goods
below below being taken with deck load at
less rate of freight than they would have been
if no portion had been upon deck, and having
thus derived and awaited themselves OF the ad-
vantages and profit of the agreement OF their CO.
partner, they must also share in any risks and
losses attending it. Qti sentit connaodum sen
tire debet ct o7ests. a=f $500.
But it is said the claimants, relying on the
bill of lading, procured insurance on this car
go, which did not cover that portion which
was on deck, and that thereby they have sus-
tanned loss. But for whose benefit was this
insurance? WASH for their individual benefit
or was it for the common interest? 1t should
have been, and undoubtedly was, for whom it
might concern, that is, for Eerrin as well as for
themselves, and being so, and Ferrin having
knowledge that the goods were on deck, and
having agreed to their being there, it is not for
him or his ropartnefS now to complain OF any
loss sustained by them by reason of the bill Of
lading being filed out traudulently or negli-
gently by Perrin, without mention of the deck
load. The same answer may be given to the
claim of Churchill, Browns & Manson, on ae-
count of their acceptance OF the drafts drawn
upon them by Perrin. They were drawn by
one partner upon his eopartners on account of
the partnership business. If Mr.. Manson
when in Cardenas had there purchased ON ac-
count of his firm cargo CT mOlasses, and had
drawn drafts in payment of the cargo on his
copartners in Portland, no one can entertain a
doubt but that the other copartners would have
been bound by his acts, and that any agree
ment ON his part that o portion of the cargo
should be shipped ON deck would be as obliga-
tory upon them as on him although they had
no personal knowledge Of such an agreements
and / can perceive no legal difference between
that case and the present. Each are cases of
partnership with all the rights and liabilities
properly appertaining thereto. D1o9 8e lifH /
Z The case of Berkely VS.. Waiting, q ais. 9TH
of A q Il. % is in some respects very similar
to the present. In that case Waiting shipped q
parcel of goods in his own name consigned to
plaintiff on beard a vessel belonging to himself
and the other defendants The goods not being
delivered to plaintiff, he commenced an action
against the three ship owners; the defense was,
the goods were never shipped on board, and that
Waiting the consignee knew this fact. The
court held that Waiting should be considered
the plaintiffs agent, and if so, the plaintiff was
coghzant through his agent, that the goods
were not shipped and therefore he could not
recover although he held the bill of lading for
value. The courts say the plaintiff is here the
shipper in effect, and sues as shipper and the
bill of lading made out by his agent is not con-
elusive upon the other owners.
In my opinion the defence can not prevail
and the LibelIants are entitled to the full
freight. AFR iA fts. ia4
Decree for $1S4870 and interest from April,
q, 1886, and costs. 9e sllaEt t1ftass.d
Shepley & Strout for Libellants. ha
De6sois G. Webb for Respondents