Case Name: Daniel Wilson versus Josiah Bragdon
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1813-05
Citations: 9 Tyng 79
Docket Number: 
Parties: * Daniel Wilson versus Josiah Bragdon
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 91–92

Head Matter:
* Daniel Wilson versus Josiah Bragdon
A seaman on board a ship, part of a fleet of merchant vessels, on the proposal oi the master, went, with other seamen from other vessels of the fleet, on board one of the other vessels, which was armed as a convoy; and being captured in that vessel, he was held to be entitled to his wages, from the master of his original vessel, until her arrival, but no longer, although he was longer in prosecuting his return.
Assumspit for the wages of a seaman. In a cáse stated by the parties, it was agreed that the plaintiff shipped on board the brig Cornelius, at York, on the 25th of April, 1810, for the monthly wages of twenty dollars, the defendant being the master thereof. The brig was bound for Gottenburg and a market, and back to the United States. On her return from St. Petersburg, she touched at Elsineur, where were several American vessels, also bound home. A number of Danish and French privateers being there, and committing frequent depredations on the vessels of the United States, a consultation was had by the masters of the American vessels, on the best mode of defending themselves against said privateers; and it was agreed between them that the ship Augustus, of Salem, one of the said homeward-bound vessels, should be manned and armed, for the purpose of convoying the rest. The defendant informed the crew of the Cornelius of what had been agreed on, said two of his men were wanted to go on board the Augustus, and inquired who would go. The plaintiff and another offered themselves, and ac cordingly went on board said ship for the purpose aforesaid. The said American vessels, and amongst them the Cornelius, sailed under convoy of the Augustus, on the 16th of September, 1811; and on the same day the Augustus was captured and carried to Copenhagen, the plaintiff being on board. He was unable to obtain a voyage home, and was, by the American consul at that place, put on board a vessel bound to the Delaware, where he arrived on the last of December, 1811, reaching Boston, the port of discharge of the Cornelius, on the 13th, and his home at York on the 18th of January, 1812. The Cornelius arrived at Boston on the 20th November, 1811. It was the expectation of the plaintiff and of the defendant, that the plaintiff would return on board the Cornelius on the day he left her to go on board the Augustus, or the day after, he having left all his spare clothes on board the Cornelius.
* Upon these facts, it was submitted to the Court, with- [ * 80 J out argument, to determine to what period the plaintiff was entitled to recover his wages, — whether to the time of his leaving the Cornelius at Elsineur, her arrival at Boston, or his arrival at York; and it was agreed that judgment should be rendered according to the opinion of the Court.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The plaintiff is entitled to his wages up to the 20th of November, when the vessel arrived at her port of discharge. By going as a volunteer on board the Augustus, he assumed the risk of a longer detention,
ADDITIONAL NOTE.
[See Harris vs. Ive, 1 Har. Woll, 238. — Jessee vs. Roy, 1 C. M. & R. 263.— Sherman vs. Bennett, M. & M. 849. — F. H.]
[In Brooks vs. Dorr & Al., (2 Mass. Rep. 39,) where the mariner was taken from the ship by the captors, and never returned to the ship after she had been released, but went home as soon as he was able so to do, it was held that he was entitled to his wages until his return home. See Shafford & Al. vs. Dodge Al., 14 Mass. Rep. 72. — Luscomb vs. Prince & Al., 12 Mass. Rep. 576. — In Hooper vs. Perley, (11 Mass. Rep. 545,) and Swift vs. Clark, (15 Mass. Rep. 173,) it was held that the seaman was entitled to his wages from the commencement of the voyage to the last port of delivery, and during half the time of the stay of the ship in that port, she having been afterwards captured. — And see Locke vs. Swan, 13 Mass. Rep. 76. — Moore vs. Jones Al., 15 Mass. Rep. 424.— See Wetmore & Al. vs. Henshaw, 12 Johns. Rep. 324. — Beale vs. Thomson, 3 Bos. & Pul. 430. — 4 East. 546—562. — Chandler vs. Greaves, 2 H. Bl. 606, n. — Bergestrom vs. Mills, 3 Esp. Rep. 36. — The Friends, 4 Rob. Ad. R. 143. — Watson vs. The Rose, 1 Pet. Ad. R. 132. — Girard vs. Ware, 1 Pet. R. 142. — Ed.]