Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1894-10-04
PILOTS GAIS rHErR sun
The Decision by Chancellor woicott Yes
terday Week-Dccisions in the Dolbow
ana Shipley Suits.


ana shipley Suits.
Chancellor Wolcott gave q decision
Wednesday in the case of Cnas. Morris
ct al. owners of tie plot BRAT Thomas
Howard VS.. the goart of Plot Commits
sioEers
The suit was question of jurisdic-
ton, it being desired to asceNain
whether the board had the right to place
pilot on board boat owned by other
pilots, without the consent of the
owners, and the boards right to revoke
the licenses of the pilots who refused to
comply with such an order. A pre-
liminary injunction had been granted
restraining the Pilot Commissioners
from revoking the licenses of the owners
of the pilot boat Howard. The question
was to whether the injunction should
be made permanent.
The owners of the pilot boat Howard
are Marshall Bertrand, Thomas II.
Carpenter, Harry @. Maull, Jacob Teal,
James w. Marshall and James Ruther-
ford, all licensed pilots of the bay and
the Delaware river. Prior to June 23d,
1891, John B. Merritt, Delaware pilot,
applied for place on one of the pilot
boats and was ordered by the board to
take his place on the Howard. Suisse
quently on June 23d, 1901, the secretary
of the board served notice on all the
owners of the Howard except James w.
Marshall and James Rutherford, that If
the boards wishes were not complied
with, their pilot licenses would be
revoked within 40 days.
After the receipt OF the notice the
nj n Marohnll 2arfpo 1,I
Thomas II. Carpenter, Harry 9. Maull
tenths of the Howard, refused to COM
ply with the order of the board, for the
reason that Merritt had no share nor
interest in the pilot boat Howard. 1t is
stated that at the time Of Merritt's appli-
cation the Howard was well manned
with licensed pilots, and the object of
the defendant in insisting that Merritt
should be received on the Howard was
to give employment to him as pilot, he
not then being employed on any boat
The Chancellor said that the decision
of the BOARD must have been based on
the power to make rules for the govern
ment of pilots, the right to decide all
differences or else the portion of the
act forbidding combinations among the
pilots.
In relation to combinations the deci-
sion says: "The simple fact that they
refused to allow him to cruise in their
particular boat can hardly be consid-
cred combination within the intent
and meaning of this provision, there
still remaining to him number of diff
terent ways in which he might have
discharged those duties. He might have
found employment upon one of the
other pilot boats. He might have pur.
chased pilot boat of his own. Or he
might have joined with other pilots in
the procurement of still another pilot
boat. And even ii he were unable for
any reason to avail himself of the op.
portunities left to him II would be his
misfortune and not the fault of the
compliments. 1t would be stretching
the statute too far to construe such
refusal into combination that clashes
with the spirit of the act"
The Chancellor further says that if
the case was difference" such as the
board might take cognizance of it has
no right to proceed in the way it did.
He also says that 1t was not shown that
the placing of Merritt on the pilot boat
would benefit the public, as the boat
was already well manned.
In regard to jurisdiction the decision
says: 81 have reserved the question
of Jurisdiction for the last because,
while it was asserted that this court has
not jurisdiction of the cause, vet it was
not seriously contended for. The iuris-
diction of the court in this cause may
be rested upon the fact that the declared
intention of the board to revoke com.
plalnants' licenses was virtually declar-
alton of n proposed forfeiture of their
licenses, which, under any view of the
case presented, us has Just been shown,
is not authorized by the act. An abso.'
lutte or indefinite revocation or the
licenses is equivalent to forfeiture,
and the action of the board must be SO
construed. While the general doctrine
is that equity may relieve against for.
textures declared by contract, but not
against those expressly declared or
authorized by statute, yet when they
are not so declared or authorized, equity
will relieve by the interposition Of its
inlunctive power"
In the case of William G. Spruance.
administrator, c. I. a. of King nolbow
vs.. Darlington ct al. the Chancellor de-
cided that before the sale of the real
estate under the power of sale. the fec
simple of the land descended to the
heirs.at.law of the testator, and they
were therefore entitled to the rents and
profits of the real estate while the
power was held in allegiance.
In the case of Edward Bringhurst,
Jr., executor under the will of Hannah
Shipley, deceased, VS. Elizabeth b.
orter, the Chancellor decided that the
shares of the legatee who died before
the testatrix without issue, descended to
the heirs-at-law of such lcgatees, and
not the heirs-at-law of the te3tatrix.