New Orleans Republican., 1872-12-14
THE COURTS.
IDDortant Decisi0n by Judge Cullom.

Important Decision by Judge CulIom.
GOldenbow g. Kelly VS.. Sidney P. Hunt
ct. al owners, etc.-In this case the court
has rendered the following opinion, which
viii be found of interest to shipowners and
brokers:
The petition alleges that the defendant
who is the master and also one of the own
ers of the brig John w. Hunt, also the other
owners of said vessel, all OF whom reside
out of the State, are indebted TO them in the
sum Of $2l0 with interest. That this in
debtedness exists in solido against the own
ers, and grows out of charter party eff
fected by said Hunt, captain Of said brig,
with the plaintiffs, for a cargo of lumber, to
be conveyed as freight from this place, via
PascagOula, Mississippi, to Boston.
The amount of freight of said cargo Is
42O tons, and that petitioners were entitled
to five per cent commission thereon. They
allege that they are ship brokers. An at
taChment of the brig was asked for, accom-
panied by the usual affidavit, bond, etc.
Judgment is prayed for, in accordance with
the allegations, against Sidney z. Hunt,
the master, and the owners of the said YES
sci, ID solido, with lien and privilege on the
property attached.
The answer denies the allegation Of peti-
TONERS, which tend in any manner to charge
the defendants with liability in the prem
ises
The plaintiffs offered in evidence copy
of charter party made and concluded
upon in the city Of New , on May II,
1872 between Sidney P. Hunt, master and
agent for owners of brig John w Hunt
etc, and j. w. Black, agent for William
Griffin 81 Co.
From this we are unable to see what was
the tonnage, etc, of the brig, her destina-
ton, rates OF freight, and commission agreed
to be paid.
Several very intelligent gentlemen were
brought to the witness stand, who, as far
as they had any knowledge Of what trans
pred in the office of petitioners between
Messrs. Kelly and Hunt, relating to the al
legged contract of abatement made very
uniform statements. Thesubstance Of their
evidence went to show, in its effect, con
tract as alleged.
think the charter party is established
beyond doubt Counsel for defense in ar
gument admitted that if Captain Hunt had
made q contract as alleged on the day he
was first introduced to the plaintiffs, which
was only the day before it was made, the
plaintiffs might have been entitled to their
commissions. AS d principle OF law, he
took the position that it was incumbent on
the plaintiffs to show that they were bro
kers tor the brig Hunt, and that this was
essential to their rights to recover.
This proposition is broader than the court
can accept as true, or adopt as a principle
of sound law in this case.
Contracts Of aHreightment are simply
contracts with carriers for the carriage Of
goods, and their validity does not depend
upon the licensed capacity Of parties as
brokers of the vessel selected They are
contracts by which an entire ship or some
principal part thereof is let to an individual
for The conveyance of goods, for a specified
voyage.
1t Is sometimes made by the master, at
others by the owners, as in the present in
stance, and although it is safest and most
usual to reduce it to writing, a ship may be
hired by parol contract, so as to bind both
parties, there being no statute of the United
States which makes a charter party by deed
or writing essential evidence of the con-
tract. See Taggara vs.. L0ring, l6 Mass.
336.
1t was very fully shown that Messrs. Col
denbow g. Kelly were ship brokers IN this
city, and 1t was also shown that Norton (
Bell were the regular brokers and agents Of
the brig Hunt. But these facts can not, in
the opinion Of the court, initiate against
the validity Of a contract entered into by
the owner with an outside broker whom he
finds anxious and willing to ship on his YES
sci. Such q contract is certainly binding on
him, whatever may be the wrong done to
his regular brokers, or the extent Of their
rights to recover. And this doctrine is not
c0ntroyerted by the decisions Of our Su-
pUeme Court. In the case of Jenkins VS..
Trott, the court held that "a captain, to
whom a broker, to procure freight, intro
duces a shipper, declines the latter's terms,
but few days after, while the broker is
still looking for freight on better terms, ac-
cepts those of the shipper through another
broker who Is paid, the first broker must be
paid also"
T., q Jss1T