Torices v. Winged Racer
District Court, S.D. New York
In admiralty. This action is brought on a charter of the ship by the owners to the li-belant [Rafael E. Torices] in July, 1857, for a voyage to China, and thence back to Havana, with a load of coolies, not less than 884 in number, for which the libelant was to pay freight, $67.50 apiece to the ship, and a further sum to the master.
Read the full summary
In admiralty. This action is brought on a charter of the ship by the owners to the li-belant [Rafael E. Torices] in July, 1857, for a voyage to China, and thence back to Havana, with a load of coolies, not less than 884 in number, for which the libelant was to pay freight, $67.50 apiece to the ship, and a further sum to the master. The clause of the charter which the libel was sought to enforce was as follows: “The penalty of nonperformance of this contract is mutually fixed at half the amount of freight, and to the accomplishment of the same the charterer engages his whole responsibility,…
1Opinion of the Court
HELD BY THE COURT
(BETTS, District Judge):
That by the maritime law a ship is not bound to the performance of a contract for her employment, unless there be mutually a liability charged on cargo on board for the satisfaction of those services. When the contract is for the prospective employment of a ship in transportation of cargo which is not placed on board, the remedy for a breach of such contract is in the common law courts. That the clause in the charter by which the owners engage “their vessel, rigging, etc., as by law,” subjects the security to the operation of the law maritime upon…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Selover v. SchoellkopfCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1898
- Gronvold v. SuryanDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1935