Kenzel v. Kirk
New York Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment rendered on the verdict of a jury. William H. Kenzel, the respondent, on the 1st September, 1856, was a store keeper in Jersey City, dealing with vessels. On that day, William C. Rogers, whom he knew to be master of the schooner Moonlight, came into his store and bought an -outfit in provisions for the schooner, for a round voyage he was about making to the West-Indies and other ports.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from a judgment rendered on the verdict of a jury. William H. Kenzel, the respondent, on the 1st September, 1856, was a store keeper in Jersey City, dealing with vessels. On that day, William C. Rogers, whom he knew to be master of the schooner Moonlight, came into his store and bought an -outfit in provisions for the schooner, for a round voyage he was about making to the West-Indies and other ports. The amount of the bill was $296.88. The bill was purchased in the name of the vessel, on a credit -of three months. Nothing was said to Kenzel, at the time of the purchase by the master,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Clerke, P. J.
It will not be disputed, I presume, if the owner charters his vessel to the master for a certain period, he, covenanting to victual and man her at his own cost, is to be deemed the owner pro hap vice, (Hallett v. Col. Ins. Co., 8 John. 272;) and he, like any other charterer under similar circumstances, is alone responsible for supplies furnished for the intended voyage. But it is contended, on behalf of the plaintiff, where the transaction is not a positive chartering, but a letting of the vessel on shares!, although the master engaged with the owners to provide the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hallet v. Columbian InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1811
3Cited by5 opinions
- Scarff v. . MetcalfNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Nelson v. Western Steam Navigation Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1909
- Ford v. CrockerNew York Supreme Court · 1866
- Vose v. CockroftNew York Supreme Court · 1865
- Scarff v. MetcalfNew York Supreme Court · 1885