Court Opinion

ID: 8637704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:47:59.925594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:59.154510
License: Public Domain

LOWELL, District Judge.
Courts of admiralty, acting upon an equitable practice, though not precisely like courts of equity, may admit oral evidence to prove that illiterate seamen have signed a contract which was not read to them, and which differed from their parol engagement, even without proof that any fraud was intended to be prac-tised upon them. This upon two grounds: that the variation in favor of the ship-owner operates a practical fraud; and that this court has a right to re-form a written contract, in some cases, by oral testimony.
Taking it' to be proved that the seamen agreed for one trip or voyage only, what were the rights of the parties? I find the evidence to be, that, if the vessel is full, or if every reasonable attempt has been made to fill her, it is to be considered that the trip is ended. This is usually measured by the expenditure of the salt or bait or provisions for the voyage. And this is the meaning of the usage testified to. The owners furnish these things; they pay a lump sum for the trip or voyage; and. when the supplies are gone, it is taken for granted that the men have served out their time.
But now comes in the modification that, of late years, all the bait has not been put on board for the trip in such voyages as this, and, when what is put on board has been used, can the men insist on going home? Upon the evidence, I think not. The reliance which the owners placed on catching bait appears, under the circumstances, to be reasonable; and, when it failed, the men were taking a rather sharp point, not conforming to the spirit of the rule, when they insisted that, the bait being out, their time was up. In fact, the usual time had not elapsed; a full fare had not been caught; the men knew very well that the short supply of bait was accidental. To put into St. Peters might extend their trip a few days; and for that it is possible they might have claimed compensation. What they insisted on was that they had made one constructive trip. Courts of admiralty do not encourage constructive performance of a fair contract.
There was no cruelty, hardship, or imposition practised on the men. nor even what in such a voyage can be called a deviation. The owners had failed to supply enough bait, and might perhaps be required to pay for any time which they lost, because it was part of their duty to furnish bait. But they had-acted on reasonable and probable grounds; and the action of the men brought the voyage to a losing termination.
Under these circumstances, I think the li-bellants cannot truly allege'that they have performed their contract. And, as it does not appear that the owners have been benefited by their services, they are not entitled to a quantum meruit.
Libel dismissed.