Barker v. Cheriot
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit. The cause was tried at the New-Yorlc Sittings, on the' 31st December, 1806, _ . T . r . f . before Mr. Justice Livingston.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit. The cause was tried at the New-Yorlc Sittings, on the' 31st December, 1806, _ . T . r . f . before Mr. Justice Livingston. On the 24th January, 1805, the plaintiff let the ship Mciry to freight, to the defendant, for a voyage from New^orlc to Martinique and back to New-Yorlc, and a charte r party, in the usual form, was executed by the parties, ' The defendant covenanted to pay for the freight or hire 0fthe vessel for the entire voyage, the sum of four thou- . jo* sand five hundred dollars, for which he was to give a note, payable in sixty days after delivery…
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
This was one entire voyage 'from New York to Martinique, and back again; and as the vessel was captured upon her return, and did not deliver her return cargo, no. freight is due, notwithstanding the defendant may have had the benefit of the outward voyage, because, by the express agreement of the parties, the outward and homeward voyage were one, and the *356proát depended upon the entire performance. This rule is too well settled to admit of being questioned. (Abbot, 265. 269.) Here has been no acceptance of the cargo, so as to make the defendant liable for a pro rata freight.† The master ought…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Coffin v. StorerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Littlefield v. MaxwellSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1850
- Brown v. HuntMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Donahoe v. KettellU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1858
- Mott v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1859
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.