Tuckerman v. Brown
New York Supreme Court
This action was brought against the defendants as owners of the schooner Pennsylvania, for not delivering a cargo of coal.
Read the full summary
This action was brought against the defendants as owners of the schooner Pennsylvania, for not delivering a cargo of coal. For a statement of facts, see Clendaniel v. Tuckerman, ante, p. 184. The trial was had before Mr. Justice Wright, without a jury, at the Ulster circuit, in April, 1852. After the evidence was closed, the defendants moved for a nonsuit, upon two grounds: 1. That the action should have been brought against the master, he being owner pro hac vice, and the party who contracted for the carriage of the goods. 2. That the obligation of the owner, as carrier, ceased' on arrival…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Harris, J.
The owner of a vessel is never made liable as a carrier, merely by virtue of his ownership. The vessel must also have been in his employment, so as to make him a party to the contract for carriage. Thus, if the owner charter his vessel to another, the charterer alone is liable. The criterion of liability, therefore, is not ownership, but employment. The party who has the control of the vessel, and in whose business it is engaged, is regarded as the owner pro hac vice, and as such is answerable to the freighter. (See 3 Kent, 138, and cases there cited.) Nor is it…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Taggard v. LoringMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1820
3Cited by2 opinions
- Western Transportation Co. v. HawleyNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1863
- Thorp v. HammondSupreme Court of the United States · 1871