Case: JOHN ARCHER et al. vs. JAMES MAKEE et al.
Abbreviation: Archer v. Makee
Court: Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii
Jurisdiction: Hawaii
Decision Date: 1851-04
Docket Number: 
Citation: 1 Haw. 47
Volume: 1
Reporter: Hawaii Reports
Parties: JOHN ARCHER et al. vs. JAMES MAKEE et al.
Pages: 47–48

JOHN ARCHER et al. vs. JAMES MAKEE et al.
A suit upon a written contract made by the master of a ship in his own name, cannot be brought in the name of the owners, their name not appearing in the contract, but must be brought in the name of the master.
This was an action brought to recover damages, (laid at $10,000,) for the non-fulfillment of a certain contract respecting a cargo of Newcastle coals.
The plaintiffs offered in evidence, as the foundation of their action, a contract entered into between Charles Cobb, master of the barque “Elizabeth Archer,” and Makee, Anthon & Co., by which Captain Cobb bound himself to proceed with all possible despatch from Honolulu to Sydney, take in a certain number of tons of coals, and return to Honolulu. On his return, Makee, Anthon & Co. were to pay him $21 per ton for the coals delivered.
The defendant’s counsel objected to the reading of the contract to the jury, on the ground that the plaintiffs were not parties to it, and could not bring this action upon it. They contended that Makee, Anthon & Co. contracted with Charles Cobb, and not John Archer and others, and that the action if brought at all should be brought in the name of Charles Cobb.
To this the counsel for the plaintiff replied, that Capt. Cobb was simply the agent of John Archer and other s, the owners of the barque “ Elizabeth Archer,” and that he acted in that capacity, in chartering the vessel, was clearly deduciMe from his describing himself in the contract, as “ Master of the barque Elizabeih Archer.” That this being the case, the principals or owners, though not mentioned in the contract, might elect to sue on it in their own or Cobb’s name.

Chief Justice Lee,
delivering the opinion of the Court, ruled as follows :
A suit cannot be sustained on this contract in the name of Archer and others, for they are not parties to it. That the owners of the barque might bring an action on this contract, in the name of Cobb, is not denied; but to say that the principals can sustain a suit on a written contract entered into by their agent, in which the names of those principals do not appear, is going beyond the law. The annexing to Capt. Cobb’s name the words, st Master of the barque Elizabeth Archer,” does not alter the case, and must be treated merely as a description of his office, and designation of the person. By no means can it be so construed as to make Archer and others parties to this contract.
Mr. Montgomery for plaintiff.
Mr. Bates and Mr. Burbank for defendants.
Under the ruling of the court, the plaintiff’s counsel submitted to a non-suit.