The national Republican., 1867-03-05
THE COURTS.
SUPREME CouRT OF THE UNITED STATES,

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATEs.-
MONDAY, March T. 1867.
Admiralty - ConstrMciion Of Charter. ports
Maritime LieR-The Ship Bird Of PHadise, Her
Tackle, DC, Appellants, Us. Leonard HeyHeRla,i
Ct al This Is an appeal from the Circuit Court for
the Northern District Of California. The libelRnts
filed thor bill in the district court against the Bird
Of Paradise to recover $50 900 damages for viola.
tion Of charterports, in not consigning the vessel
to them, nor delivering to them the cargo, but 70.
tanning 1t, claiming lien for the freight when no
such lien existed and against her cargo Of coal to
recover possession of II as having good title
thereto" with monition to all persons claiming In.
terest therein. Process was issued against both
vessel and cargo and both were attached.
The claimants in their answer claimed the right
to retain the coal for the payment Of freight denied
the wrongful detention and damages, and ayerred
that Ecces the charterer had failed to perform the
charter, had failed to pay the freight which was due
before her arrival and was insolvent, bankrupt,
and absconded and that his original agreement FOR
credit was fraudulent. The facts are as follows:
On the 10th of March, 1868, Anthony Eccles, Of
Liverpool, chartered from the claimants the ship
Bird Of Paradise, OF which they were owners to
carry full cargo Of coal to San Francisco at tho
rate Of 53s Cd sterling per ton on the quantity dc.
livered, payable on unloading and right delivery OF
the cargoj the freight to be paid in Liverpool, one
quarter In cash, one quarter by the acceptance OF
Ecces, the charterer, ut six months from the final
sailing Of the vessel and tho remainder by like bill
at three months from delivery at the charteror's
office in Liverpool Of certificate Of right delivery Of
cargo agreeably to bill of fading or in cash less five
per cent, at freighters option The ship and her
cargo were bound for the performance Of tho char,
ter. The penalty for non. performance was the
chartered freight In pounds sterling.
On the 4th day of April, 1858, the master signed,
and tho freighter Ecces accepted, bill of lading
in the usual form, for the cargo deliverable to
order or assigns he or thcy paying freight at tho
rate fixed by the charter party. Tho cargo be.
longed to EcceS, and the charter party provided
that the vessel should be consigned to his agents in
San Francisco. The libellants were the agents of
Ecces at San Francisco The vessel sailed from
Liverpool April 10th, 1868, and arrived at San
francisco Deesmber 10th, lS63-eight months and
ten days.
Tho charterer, Eccles, paid ne.quarter of the
freight before sailing and gave his acceptance for
another fourth ut six months, falling due October
18th, 1883 more than two months before tho vessel
arrived but 1t was never paid Eccles having failed
in business, and becoming and remaining insolvent
and a bankrupt. The other acceptance for the
residue of the freight not given, and the freight
was not paid, nor offered TO be paid, at San Fran.
cisco. The captain, therefore, refused to consign
the ship and cargo to the libelants, the agents Of
Eccles, but kept control Of them.
The libellants the agents of the insolyent char.
terer, demanded the cargo Of the master without
payment OF freight, and the master refused to de-
liver 1t unless the freight which amounted to
81, go in gold was paid on delivery, according to
the bill OF ladng. The chareror's agents insisted
that no freight was payable, except by their bank.
rupt principal 10 Liverpool, in his own worthless
paper, as provided in the charter party. The
ireighter never exercised or communicated the OPP
tion reserved in the charter party lie never gave
nor offered his accepances, except one before sail
ing nor offered to pay, nor refused to pay cash.
The decroo below was, that the cargo belonged to
the lbellants and there was no lein for freight
The claimants appeal to this court contendng
that this is most uncOnscOnable action, and that
in such an action the court will make all renson-
able presumpiOns against the libellantsi and that
these two causes of action cannot be joined they
are incompatible, requiring different judgments,
and for this the decree must be reversed.
The case, as presented in tho evidence, Is an en-
tire departure from the case Rrticled upon in the
libel and for this reason the libeants were not en-.
titled to recover.
rs to the action of possossiOn-the lbellants were
not entitled to recover unless they made out srits
SimL lHriS right to the possession of the cargo
free Of freight, as against Capt Davidson, the mas
ter of the vessel who was in possession under the
bill of lRdlng. This they failed to do. They had
no posssssOry right under the charter party. They