Legal Opinion

Minot v. Durant

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided May 15, 1811PublishedCited by 1 opinion

This was an action of covenant broken, brought by the plaintiffs, as administrators of the goods and estate of Thomas Minot, deceased, upon a charter-party of affreightment, dated the 3d of November, 1807, whereby the defendant hired of the said Thomas and others the brig Fortitude, on a voyage from Portland to St. Croix and back to the United States, thence to St. Croix and back to the United States twice.

Read the full summary

This was an action of covenant broken, brought by the plaintiffs, as administrators of the goods and estate of Thomas Minot, deceased, upon a charter-party of affreightment, dated the 3d of November, 1807, whereby the defendant hired of the said Thomas and others the brig Fortitude, on a voyage from Portland to St. Croix and back to the United States, thence to St. Croix and back to the United States twice. The defendant covenanted to pay for the hire at the rate of 1,75 cents per ton per calendar month, during the time the said brig should be so employed by him, deducting therefrom the time…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court.

We are all of opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover their proportion of the hire during the whole voyage. The defendant might have employed the vessel in the coasting trade during the continuance of the embargo. But separately from this consideration, parties must be bound by their contracts, if they will not provide against contingencies, as they may, and as the defendant did in this case as to other contingencies.

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Spafford v. DodgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1817

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API