Court Opinion

ID: 8635560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:44:38.336901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:54.852459
License: Public Domain

NELSON, Circuit Justice.
The charter-party is carelessly drawn, and it is perhaps difficult to say that it contains a warranty or covenant to carry the freight and passengers mentioned in it, as was probably intended. But I am satisfied that both parties contemplated, at the time, that freight and passengers to the extent and number mentioned were to be carried, if furnished by the charterer. The measure of compensation was doubtless regulated very much thereby. I am, also, satisfied that the vessel had sufficient capacity to comply, in this respect, with the terms of the charter; and that the captain wrongfully refused to permit her to be thus laden. I had doubts, on the first hearing, whether or not the testimony of J. C. Taylor was admissible, or the case would then have been disposed of according to the view above stated. It is pretty certain, upon the further testimony on this point, that a release was executed to him by the respondent, before his testimony was. taken.
*1269The vessel should have carried some 160 passengers more than were taken on board. I think the proof full that they could have been furnished, and that a considerable number had been engaged, and were obliged to be sent by other vessels.
The case, upon the view I have taken, should be sent to the clerk, to take proofs as to the damage sustained on account of the non-compliance with the charter-party, and which should be deducted from the freight. But, to save expense, and prevent further delay, I shall make the deduction myself, and shall accordingly direct that the decree below be modified, by deducting therefrom the sum of 51,200, and that no costs be recovered by either party on the appeal.
This decision was affirmed by the supreme oourt, on appeal. See Ogden v. Parsons, 23 How. [64 U. S.] 167.