Case Name: Zenas D. Basset, jun. et al. plaintiffs, vs. Abner Crowell et al. defendants
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1864-12-31
Citations: 3 Rob. 72
Docket Number: 
Parties: Zenas D. Basset, jun. et al. plaintiffs, vs. Abner Crowell et al. defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Superior Court of the city of New York
Volume: 26
Pages: 72–74

Head Matter:
Zenas D. Basset, jun. et al. plaintiffs, vs. Abner Crowell et al. defendants.
Where one of several joint owners of a vessel sails her for the joint benefit of all, each receiving a share of the profits, all are liable for money advanced, at the ■ request of the owner sailing her, to pay her necessary expenses, such as port charges and the like.
(Before Moncrief, Garvin and McCunn, JJ.)
Heard December 16, 1864;
decided December 31, 1864.)
The brig Rogelem, owned by the defendants, arrived in the port of New Orleans, in the year 1854. R. M. Harrison & Co., commission merchants there, did her business and paid her port charges, which amounted to $1271.51, of which a balance of $1174.01 remained due. For this balance of disbursements they were instructed by Abner Crowell, one of the owners in charge, to draw upon the plaintiffs, and in September did so. The draft was drawn “ on account of brig Rogelem, for dis bursements,” was accepted by the plaintiffs, and by them paid in November, 1855. The draft was accepted upon the credit of the brig and owners, and was charged to the brig and owners as disbursements of the vessel. The owners refusing to pay the sum thus advanced, this action was brought against them to recover the amount.
The action was tried by one of the justices of this court, and a jury. The testimony on both sides being closed, and the amount of the draft and interest being admitted to be $1872. 57, the jury, by direction of the court, under exception on behalf of the defendants’ counsel, rendered a verdict for the plaintiffs, for the sum of $1872.57, being the said amount of the plaintiffs’ claim and interest, subject to the opinion of the court, upon a case to be made by the plaintiffs, containing the aforesaid objections and exceptions ; and the court further directed that such objections and exceptions be heard in the first instance at the general term ; and that the entry of judgment upon the said verdict be suspended in the meantime.
C. L. Benedict, for the plaintiffs.
Dexter & Hawkins, for the defendants.

Opinion:
By the Court, McCunn, J.
There is no dispute about the fact that the plaintiff paid out about $1174.01 on account of the brig, and that the advances had been made at the request of one of the owners (Crowell,) and the question is simply, was that advance of such a nature, under the circumstances, as to bind the other owners ? I think clearly it was.
It appears from the evidence, that the defendant Crowell was sailing the brig for the joint benefit of all the defendants, and each was receiving a share of the profits, and they all were to pay a share of at least some of the bills. The evidence is not that he chartered the vessel to Crowell, but that he was sailing her for the joint benefit of all the partners, the defendants themselves included. This evidence is uncontradicted, and of course at once fixes the liabilities of these defendants in this action.
Clearly in law, then, these defendants were jointly responsible with Crowell for this debt. There is no more well settled principle in law than that where a vessel is sailed on shares, • all the owners are responsible for her bills, especially where the items of those bills show they were for port dues.
This embraces all the important points of the case, and the exceptions should, therefore, be overruled, and the judgment affirmed, with costs.