Farrel v. M'Clea

THIS was an action brought by the Plaintiff to recover his wages as mate of a vessel, or which the Defendant was master, and one Sadlier was the owner. On the trial, it appeared, that the Defendant, having cited the Plaintiff to shew his cause of action, acknowledged before the Judge at his chambers, that he was captain of the vessel during the time for which the wages were claimed; but then he insisted, that he had never engaged the Plaintiff, who, as he laid, was shipped on a contract with the owner. To prove the time of service, the following certificate, subscribed by the Defendant was read:—“ Philadelphia, 12th January, 1787. These are “ to certify to whom it may concern, that Joshua Farrel was mate on " board the from the 16th June to the 16th August, “ 1786, making two months. Given under my hand, Robert M’Clea.—NB. At the wages of twenty dollars "per month, as "per Mr. Sadlier's agreement.” insisted, that the case, depending entirely on the consession of the party, the whole of it must be taken together ; Newman v. Bradley, ant. 240. that then it would appear, as well from the certificate, as from the acknowledgement before the Judge, that the Plaintiff had been employed by the owner of the vessel, and not by the captain ; and, consequently, that the owner and not the captain was liable for the wages. He admitted, that where a captain shipped a sailor, or ordered repairs, he was responsible ; but he contended, that there must be a shipment by the captain to charge him on the general principle ; Doug. 99. 1 co. and that where the captain, or the owner, undertakes by an assumpsit, either express or implied, the other is discharged. 2 Stra. 816. He endeavoured also to establish a distinction between a mate and the common mariners, the mate being, he observed, a midle character between the seamen and the captain ; and thence, he argued, that, like the captain, he was not entitled to the advantages which the maritime law provides for the seamen. 12 Mod. 440. stated, that mariners had a threefold security for their wages:—1st, They may proceed against the owners; 2dly, They may libel the vessel; or, 3dly, They may sue the captain. He said, that the captain was not bound to receive any sailors shipped by the owners; because he was not only liable to the owners, but to strangers, for any wrong that they might do when shipped; but, he contended, that, if the captain did receive them, he made himself liable for their wages; 12 Mod. 434. and he answered the authorities cited for the Defendant, by shewing, that they were cases of repairs, where workmen were employed by the owners, and could not be rejected or dismissed by the captain; nor was he answerable for their conduct.—That the contract was, in fact, made by the owner, he observed, rested entirely on the testimony of the Defendant; and he urged the necessity of great caution in admitting the allegations of a man in his own favour. Doug. 751. 753. Receiving them, however, in their fullest extent on this occasion, they only proved that the owner had assisted in procuring the mate to embark, and this could never defeat the triple right with which the law had armed him.