New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-01-22
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

AGE-MAsTER's AUTHORITY TO SELL SHIP,
AND TIE CIRCUMSTANCES JUsTIFYNG THE
Charles Ftr appellant asi The Cabot Amelle
The complaint of the hbelant is, that on the
18th day OF March, 1862, he shipped board the Amelia.
Plata certain merchandise described in the bills Of
ading he transported 10 Boston. and then to he de-
livered 10 the libelant alleged In the libel Allegation
also that the vessel subsequently departed the yoy
and arrived at the port OF destinations but that the
neglected TO deliver large part OF the cargo and
has not rendered any satisfactory account OF the
The defense Of the claimant of the vessel is that tho
vessel. when she arrived at Port au Prince,
worthy. and utterly unft and unable to proceed her
voyage any voyage 10 sea; that very extensive and
costly repairs necessary before Sue could be
dered seaworthy and that neither the masters nor owners
had funds credit al that port whcrewith TO pro-
the repairs 10 be made and consequently that the
MASTER not being able procure the funds 20 execute
the repairs by borrowng bond or Otherwise on the I'm
day OF June following, sold the vessel at auction and
that he the claimant then and there became the pur-
chaser OF the same, and il the lawful of the vessel
The parties agree that the cargo was received on board
ire vessel ~ Surlnain ana tat was 20 be mahsporled
and delivered as alleged by the nDeant. Inc nyoce
value of the cargo f. 1906 81 and the record shows that
the signed bills Of adng for the I'm the usual
form The agreed statement also shows mat the vessel
after sailing suffered damage by peris OF the sea- Tho
cargo consisted OF 22 b0gshead aud Is barrels OF Doasses
so hoGsead and nine barrels OF sugar and 10 pieces OF
gold copper Some OF the cargo was also damaged by
OF the noasses were ettsoned for the common safety
and that were Intentionally in the hold,
that the vessel put Port Prince for repairs,
alleged and that She was there twice surveyed and
orders 10 the amount OF 1000 when it asceraInet
that extensive repairs required than were at
called which resulted in more thorough examination OF
the vessel The sale and purchase OF the vessel were
made under the recommendation Of the third report.
Lbeant denies the validity OF the sale, and the question
whether rghttuly made, under the circumstances,
The District Court dismissed the libel and the Circuit
Court affirmed The decree. Appeal was taken TO this
Court and II is urged by the lbelant that the vessel Is
not IN immediate danger and communication can be bad
with the owners before she VIII probably be lost,
a fv IN cefl no rqh AuY 20
ters. 40l. 1.-THE fell Intention Is the inquiry
whether the owners or insurers, when not cistanss
the Ordinary means 10 convey intelligence, be informed
~ the situation Of the vessel in time TO direct the master
before she will probably be lost" Marvin on wreck and
salvage sections a. IS II the vessel IL may DE PUB
ina lace OF SAFETY and the owners or insurers may
informed the master has 10 authority H. however
much IL may DE damaged" II the master can by bot
bmry sale of cargo or otherwise procure funds 10
pair the question OF repairs is OF expdency not OF
necessity and he bias power TO sell IL has been much
disputed whether the OF funds can be OF itself
a sufficient necessity 10 justify sale by master.
Parsons. berch Law. g. But it settled conciusiyely
that the he repaired. and the master has or
procure funds legal necessity exists ana he has
authority sell however great the damage may be.
Lord stowe It must be shown not only that the
sci in want OF repair but likewise that II was I'M
possible to procure the money Tor that purpose II INC
vessel canIet be repaired at The port OF disaster or only
pains be made the question whether 10 sell not Is
one 9, and NOT Of necessity and the master
Independently of the other facts which take away al
.
that the actual condition OF the snip such 10
der II eXpcdent much less necessary sell the vessel
The burden Is the claimant To prove such necessity.
and be produces the protest and dispositions To
prove IT, and they make out strong but II Is not
without difficulty contradictions.
IL has been sometimes supposed that II the repairs
would cost so much would authorize an aband0nmens
10 insurers, the necessity which uses sale exists.
But for this there does be foundation in
principle or authority.
The cost Of repairs essential element when COM
bined with inability to wait tor orders without danger OF
destruction procure funds But when these do not
exist can be found in which the mere cost Of
pas III the vessel IL capable OF being reparcd has been
considered making "a Of necessity. It ques-
ton OF expedicncy only There Is analogy between
the power of the master 10 sell and that OF the TO
abandon TO his insurer. 1t Is part OF the contract OF in
that IL repairs cost than the value half
the value OF the vessel. the may abandon aud
thereby transfer the vessel 10 the insurer but the
facts do authorize the master TO sell 10 10 be-
well shown that IL Is not sufficient to show that the mas
acted In good faith and for the interest OF all
cerned and that sale beneficient and expedient
Beside that. legal necessity must appear IL the cir
had been such to justify sale and pass the
title the yender he took the vessel subject to all exist
ing liens
The claimant insists that the sale not only passed tho
owners interest but had the effect 81 decree Of Court
OF Admiralty rendered Ia advance ia rem and
diverted all liens.
The appelees sustain the decree II the Court below
10 for s4rsgl1 anf InrfgI fl.a