Case Name: Wysham against Rossen
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1814-01
Citations: 11 Johns. 72
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wysham against Rossen.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 72–73

Head Matter:
Wysham against Rossen.
ALBANY,
Jan. 1814.
K.„a seaman, shipped on board of avesi-Lwa^mastev,1 Son3 VjJaSimoretoLUbon back, and sailtiLoiToifthe voyage,during sei was capried^into °Jawhiietite\essei was de¿“themaster, Baltimore,t0 and the own-<3TS OÍ tllC V6Sael sentoutw. of1 the °vess¿ home* die ha* ring been releasedwithber cargo, which moíca! 3t(he" vessel return-more in balcommand**? w.; and P~, brought an actorelovcíhis from6 ~Bammore to Jamaica and hack, to the discharge;but that* w not responsicontract made firsi* master? the voyage home, from Jamaica to Baltimore, during which W. acted as master, being a new and distinct voyage, and for which only, under the new contract, he was answerable to the seamen,
IN ERROR, on certiorari, from the justices’ court of the ° city of New-York. Rossen brought an action against Wysham^ in the court below, for wages as second mate on board of the Philip, on a voyage from Baltimore to Lisbon or Cadiz and back. The plaintiff below shipped on board the vessel of which one Hall was master, and signed articles in the usual form at Ptdiimore, the 4th of September, 1812, at the rate of 30 dollars per month. The ship sailed the 6th of September, and on the 11th of the same month, a ship of war appeared in sight, about 7 miles to the eastward, and soon after showed British co-’ours' The Philip, instead of avoiding her, which she might easily have done, bore down for her and was captured. The Philip had a British license on board. She arrived at Jamaica 9th of October. The plaintiff, after being on board a month, was compelled, with the rest of the crew, to" go on board a J ' prison ship, there being no provisions on board the Philip, and was detained on board the prison ship until the 11th of March, when he and the rest of the crew were restored to the Philip. While the plaintiff was on board the prison ship, Hall, the master, returned to Baltimore, and the defendant below ivas sent out by ^ie owners to take charge of the ship and bring her home. He informed the plaintiff and the rest of the crew, on their return to the Philip, that the vessel and cargo had been acquitted by the court of admiralty. The ship sailed from Jamaica, under yie command of the defendant, on the 1st of April, 1813, in ballast, and arrived at Nem-Yorlc the 26th of April, and the plaintiff was discharged by the defendant on the 3d of May following. The defendant proved that he was owner of the outward cargo, consisting of flour and corn, and that he was a Portuguese; that . . , he had not yet paid the owners of the ship their freight, nor had he received the proceeds of the cargo, though he was about sen^nS an agent to Jamaica for that purpose. The cause was tried by a jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff for 185 dollars and 50 cents, being the whole amount of his wages i"rom Baltimore until his return to Nem-Yorlc, deducting what had been paid to him ui advance, on which the court below . , , gave judgment.
The case was submitted to the court without argument.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Seamen are said to have a threefold remedy for their wages, to wit, against the ship, the owners, and the master. But the master is chargeable only on his special contract in hiring the seamen. The action against him arises solely from the obligation which he contracts by such hiring; and the action against the owners arises from the implied contract which they are supposed to have made through their agent, the master. (1 Comyn on Contracts, 493. Pothier, Louage des Matelots, n. 226.) What evidence is there in this case of a contract between the defendant below and the seamen for their wages, for the voyage from Baltimore to Lisbon and back? Clearly none. The contract of the plaintiff below, and the rest of the crew, was with Captain Hall. The defendant was merely sent out to Jamaica, by the owners of the ship, to bring her back to New-York, and he engaged the plaintiff and seamen for that voyage only. He never assumed the contract of Captain Hall, nor did he contract with the seamen for any other voyage than the new one conducted by him from Jamaica to New-York. This was a voyage altogether distinct from the one for which the plaintiff engaged with Captain Hall. The only case in which it can be supposed that a new or substituted master assumes the contract, is, when he takes upon himself the original voyage. To carry his responsibility further would be unprecedented, and of dangerous consequence. The recovery in the court below was against law, and must be reversed,
Judgment reversed»