Court Opinion

ID: 9298850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-12-02 17:05:27.033163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:13:36.164477
License: Public Domain

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice
(charging jury). It has been truly stated by the defendants’ counsel, and admitted by those of the plaintiff, that the advances made by the plaintiff were not such, nor were they made under such circumstances, as authorized the master to execute a bottomry bond for securing their payment. The only ground upon which it can be supported, is the power of attorney, provided it authorized the acts of the master in this case; if it did, though not good, as a maritime bottomry bond, it may create a lien on the vessel. By this power, the mas*1017ter was authorized to borrow any sum or sums of money, and to secure their payment by bottomry or hypothecation bonds on the vessel and freight, or in any other way. This power, certainly, does not confine the authority to cases where a maritime hy-pothecation only could be given. First, because the words are general as to the power of borrowing, and the nature of the security to be given; and secondly, because if such had been the meaning, the power was unnecessary, since the master possessed it under his general authority of master. But, at the same time, the account stating the items of the sum lent must be examined, and no sums can be allowed, but what are to be considered strictly as money lent and advanced by the plaintiff, either by delivering them to the captain, or laid out by the plaintiff for the use of the vessel, as to which there is no difference. As an instance of the sums not to be allowed, are such as the plaintiff, as agent or consignee of Hurry and Lawerswiller, or of the ship owners, had paid for premiums of insurance on the vessel and cargo, commissions charged, and the like. Nor is it of any consequence, whether these loans or disbursements were made on the. first, second, or third voyage; because, though there is a maritime hypothecation, the bottomry bond would not be good, merely to secure antecedent advances; yet, the power in this case being general, and unlimited as to time, and having never been revoked, it was competent to the master to give security on his last voyage, for loans made then, and on former voyages, under the power. It is time that the bottomry bond, not having been executed in the name of Hurry, could not be a foundation on which - a suit could be maintained against him. But this action is brought for the sums lent; and the hypothecation bond is evidence, that a security on the vessel was given for such loans, so as to give to the plaintiff a lien on the vessel or her proceeds.
As to the freight, it has been said by the plaintiff’s counsel in argument, that the charter party was given by the captain, to secure so much of the debt due from Hurry and Lawerswiller; but no evidence of this has been given. If there had been, only the captain’s part could be bound, because he certainly had no authority, merely as master, or under the power of attorney, to enter into such an engagement. But under his general authority, he had a right to charter the vessel, the owners having no agent at Liverpool. The consequence of that is, that the defendants are entitled to receive five hundred pounds sterling, of the money earned by the vessel, and in the hands of the defendants’ agent; and the plaintiff, on this account, is only entitled to the residue of the freight.
As to the question, whether the disbursements for which the bottomry bond has been given, have been discharged by the admissions of the plaintiff, in the accounts he has furnished, you are or will be the proper judges, after you have examined the accounts. If these sums are charged in that account, and credited to the amount of the debit, this would certainly be a discharge.
The jury found for the plaintiff, only the difference between the five hundred pounds freight, and the amount actually made by the vessel; and nothing on account of the bottomry bond.