Court Opinion

ID: 8629520
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:35:29.230959+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:43.171825
License: Public Domain

STOBY, Circuit Justice.
I retain the opinion, which I expressed at the trial. The interests of commerce require a liberal construction of maritime contracts and authorities. The object of Brown was, in case of the disability of Capt. Smith, to confide to the.mate the navigation and command of the ship, and to Mr. Dana the whole authority as to the sale and purchase of the cargoes. The owner looked to the purchase of a cargo partly on credit; he expresses his designs in the most .clear and decisive language, and looking to the possible inability of Smith, he directs the purchases and sales to be made by the supercargo. What purchases, may I ask, are here meant? The defendants’ counsel say, purchase for ready cash. But could this be the serious intention of the owner? The outward voyage might have been unsuccessful. The funds might have been inadequate to any considerable purchases. The vessel might have arrived at Canton without money sufficient to purchase any considerable cargo; was she then to return in ballast? I think that such a construction can hardly be contended for. The owner has not limited the purchases to be made by the supercargo to be purchases for cash. 1-Ie uses the words with reference to the preceding statements, and I do not feel at liberty to interpose a limitation in his language, where he has used none. There has not been a shadow of evidence, to show that Mr. Brown was dissatisfied with this conduct, and I cannot believe that there ever could have been. I shall over-rule the motion for a new trial, and give judgment for the plaintiff.
Judgment for the plaintiff.