Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1902-05-08
FROM LAW COURT.
- --
Decisions Handed Down in
Three Cases, "Wednesday.
Two Kennebec and One Somerset
County Cases Finally Settled
Each of the Rescripts Were Drawn by
Justice Peabody.

set county suits:
Kennebec IS. Smith-Green 90. in
equity rs. Leslie NJ. Bird. Rescript
by Peabody, j.
Bill in equity to recover the proper
tional part Of the earnings Of the
schooner James ". Bigelow, belonging
10 the plaintiffs, alleged to be in the
hands of the defendant.
The account filed by the defendant
shows that the plaintiffs part of The
earnings is $65J.11. This the defendant
claims to retain in part satisfaction of
damages sustained by him in oonse-
quence Of the breach of q written con
tract between him and the plaintiffs.
then doing business under the name Of
Bigelow x Smith. by its terms the
plaintiffs We're to sell the said Bird
three-sixteenths of the schooner James
w. Bigelow for $4,000, with the under
standing that it shall be "A masters in
terest: that he shall sail said vessel as
long as he desires on half shares, and
providing, among other rights and linn
itations that II said Bigelow q Smith
dispose of their interest in said vessel
while said Bird is master, it shall be
sold subject to this agreement.
The defendant procured the sale Of
the three-sixteenths Of the schooner
among his friends. including one
thirty-second thereof retained by him
self
These shares were understood by the
purchasers TO convey with them the
beneficial interest granted to the de-
PENDANT under this agreement, and as
consideration for this interest the price
paid was considerably beyond the mar
ket value.
The plaintiffs sold their interest in
the vessel without notice to the pur-
chascTs Of the agreement and the de-
PENDANT was superseded by another
master: but the defendant had also
previously sold his share without the
Knowledge Of the plaintiffs. The mas
ter's interest does not exist independ-
entity of an interest in the vessel, nor
against the will Of the majority in in
terest Of the owners, unless there is
4 valid written agreement, by virtue
Of which such master would be entitled
To possession"
When The defendant sold his shares
in the vessel and WAS superseded as
master, his sailing rights We're eXtin-
Guished, unless preserved by this
agreement with the plaintiffs.
1t had been executed on his part by
the purchase of the three siXteenths of
the vessel in the name Of himself and
his friends ana was in terms broken
~ the plaintiffs by the unconditional
sale Of their interest MS majority own
cTS of the vessel.
The right Of the majority in interest
of the owners Of a vessel to control its
management is charged with the duty
to retain and exercise it not only for
the benefit of all of the owners, but
others whose property and lives may
he involved. and an agreement to sur
render such contract permanently or
Indefinitely is Inconsistent with the
trust which the law implies and i'm
poses.
The agreement between the plaintiffs
and the defendant is not available to
the defendant to enforce recovery of
damages.
He had lost the masters interest, not
alone by the fault OF the plaintiffs, but
by his own act in selling his interest in
the vessel and he is remediless under
the contract, which is void as against
public policy.
1t does not appear that he was IN
ducod to purchase this interest by the
lId'iti tl TIE pltitilltlS. III must W
presumed to have known that the
agreement was invalid, and that his
possession and control of the vessel
could be terminated at the pleasure Of
the majority in interest.
The plaintiffs should therefore re-
cover the sum OF $655.11 and interest
from the date of accounting, with
costs.
Decree according to the opinion.
Kennebec IS. Louise T.. Hunt VS..
Elijah T. Eessey. Rescript. by Pea
body. j.
Action of assumpsit to recover the
amount of = promssory note, payable
to bearer, by the holder against the
maker.
The note came in the possession Of
the Peoples National Bank of Belfast,
rs collateral security of a larger note
given to the bank by the payee, A. B.
Snow. The latter note not being paid,
the note in suit was transferred by the
bank to the plaintiff. without consid-
Grafton for the purpose of collecting by
suit
The plaintiff paid the amount of the
note Snow, taking his receipt in full
for the same. and was at the time in
formed by him that it was in the bank
in Belfast. Snow promised to give the
note to him. but failed to do so and
subsequently absconded.
The defendant claims that he notified
the bank that he had paid the note. but
inns IS denied by the cashier.
In connection with the alleged pay
ment the defendant claxims that it is
available in defense because the note
was not legally transferred to the
bank, that being held simply in pledge
II remained the property of the pledger.
But it was a negotiable promissory
note. transferable by delivery. and the
bank was the legal holder. Its rights
were not affected by payment to Snow.
who neither claimed to act for the
bank or TO have possession of any title
TO the note. So far as the rights of the
defendant are concerned, it was imma-
terial whether the bank held the note
as absolute owner or Pledge.
II is also claimed in defense that the
note has no right of action: but as it
was delivered TO her to sue for the
benefit of the real owner she may do