Whitten v. Tisdale
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
This is an action of assumpsit brought to recover the amount of a bill of ship chandlery, and the following facts are agreed between tbe parties. 1. At the time said bill was contracted the defendant was sole owner of the schooner Roanoke, and the articles in said bill were furnished and delivered in Boston by tbe plaintiffs, as alleged, to one Edward Mullen, then master of said schooner, who ordered the goods and directed them charged to “ schooner Roanoke and owners,” but…
Read the full summary
This is an action of assumpsit brought to recover the amount of a bill of ship chandlery, and the following facts are agreed between tbe parties. 1. At the time said bill was contracted the defendant was sole owner of the schooner Roanoke, and the articles in said bill were furnished and delivered in Boston by tbe plaintiffs, as alleged, to one Edward Mullen, then master of said schooner, who ordered the goods and directed them charged to “ schooner Roanoke and owners,” but without the knowledge or assent of the defendant. 2. That said Mullen was then sailing the said schooner on shares, and…
1Opinion of the CourtTenney, C. J.
In England, a ship owner is liable for necessary repairs done to a ship by the master’s order, in a foreign port; and the word necessary means such as are fit and proper for the vessel upon her voyage, and such as a prudent man, himself the owner, if present, would order. Webster and al. v. Seekamp, 4 Barn, and Ald., 352.
In this respect the law of this country is the same. The master of a ship in a foreign port, has authority to procure all supplies and repairs necessary for the safety of the ship, and the due performance of the voyage. Ship Fortitude, 3 Mason, 228. In this case Judge Story…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Holcroft v. HalbertIndiana Supreme Court · 1861