Chauncy v. Yeaton

Where property is taken from the owners tortiously, they may waive the use, and in assumpsit recover the money received by the wrong doers for the use of it, as well as the price for which it may have been sold. But if the use to which the property may have been put, was one prohibited by law, the plaintiffs cannot recover, either from the trespasser or an agent, the money received for that use. Interest may be recovered on money received for property wrongfully converted.

ASSUMPSIT, by Chauncy and others, against Joshua Yeaton and William Yeaton. The writ was served upon Joshua alone, and returned non est inventus as to William. The declaration contained two counts : one for $24,000, money had and received : the other for $33,704 20 : the balance of the following account annexed to the writ. August, 1813. Dr. to cash for freight of 4257 barrels of flour, in ship William & Henry, $24,000 One year’s interest on ditto, 1,440 Freight of 324 bags of corn, 500 Cash for price of above ship, 13,000 Seven months’ interest on ditto, 455 $39,395 00 Credit by bills of exchange, worth 5,690 80 Balance, $33,704 20 The defendant pleaded that he and the said William never promised, &c. On the trial, at the last term here, it was admitted, or clearly proved, that, in January, 1813, the plaintiffs were joint owners, in different proportions, of the ship William & Henry ; that on the 4th of said month, under the command of one Kennard, she sailed from Portsmouth, in this state, for Alexandria, where William Yeaton, to whom Chauncy had previously written to procure freight, and to wlym he ordered the master to apply, for the purpose of obtaining it,.resided. The ship arrived there on the 25th of the same month : Kennard called upon W. Yeaton, who procured a cargo of 4257 barrels of flour, to be shipped on account of a Mr. Howell, of Philadelphia, on freight for Europe, and also purchased ‘‘and put on board 324-bags of corn on account of the owners. On the 18th of February, 1813, the ship cleared for Lisbon : but was, on the 4th of March following, met and turned back by the British blockading squadron in Lynn Haven Bay. She reached Alexandria again the 13th, and the owners, on learning the above facts, directed the cargo to be kept on board. On the 6th of April, the master discharged all the crew, except one boy and the mate, a Mr. Hobart; with whom he left the ship’s papers and verbal orders to keep charge of the ship until otherwise directed by the owners. Kennard then returned on a visit to his family in New-England : soon after this, the ship was taken possession of by the defendants and others; Swedish colors hoisted ; her name altered to the “ Carl one Offatt, a Swede, put on board as nominal commander ; Hobart hired as sailing master ; Joshua Yeaton shipped as supercargo ; a new contract made with Howell as to freight; the ship transferred by Yeaton and others to one Hurd, a commission merchant at St. Bartholomews; a certificate put on board, that the property belonged to Messrs. Yeatons & Conway ; a British license was obtained from Admiral Warren, through the agency of one Beverly and General Henry Lee ; and, thus equipped, on the 30th of April the ship cleared for St. Bartholomews. In latitude 29 degrees north, her course, by the direction of Joshua Yeaton, was altered to Barbadoes, where she arrived on the 19th of June. She was immediately seized, by Capt. Dacres. Being claimed by said Joshua, as American property, under the protection of a British license, she was, on a compromise, restored ; the cargo there sold ; and the proceeds paid to said Joshua. The freight, after deducting the expenses of the seizure, &c,, amounted to $24,728. The ship was then ordered, by.said Joshua, to St. Bartholomews, for further freight, where she was seized by Hurd, as his property, delivered up again, on a compromise, and sold for $13,000. in bills of exchange. Joshua returned to this country, and after deducting losses, expenses, &c,, paid to William Yea-ton the value of the ship, and to the others concerned their respective proportions of the net profits. . There was also in the case some contradictory testimony upon the following points : The defendant introduced depositions and a very voluminous correspondence between Wm. Yeaton and the plaintiffs, to shew that an authority had been conferred by them upon William to dispose"' of the ship ; that, after she was left by Kennard, and before her conversion into a Swede, William, in pursuance of that authority, had sold her to Joshua Yeaton and others for $>13,500 ; of which sum there had since been paid to one of the plaintiffs, in bills of exchange, $6,630 ; and that after said sale William ceased to possess any interest or concern in her. The plaintiffs offered letters and depositions, to rebut the inferences deduced from what was contained in those read by the defendant : and, on the whole testimony, contended that no authority whatever had been given William Yeaton to sell the ship ; that those who, at Alexandria, took the possession of her from Hobart, did it as trespassers ; so freighted and conveyed her to the West-Indies, and so received her earnings and her price : that, possessing a right to waive the tort, they claimed in this form of action a verdict against the defendant for all the money he and William had received, both for the use and the sale of their property. The defendant, on the other hand, contended, thpt'the evidence showed an authority in William to sell, and consequently, he alone being liable for the balance due for the price of the ship, Joshua was entitled to a verdict. But if his authority was not clearly proved, it was further contended that the voyage, having been made under a British license, became illegal, and the plaintiffs ratifying it by this action could not recover its profits, but merely the money received for the ship at St. Bartholomews. The court directed the jury that if, on considering all the testimony, they were satisfied that Wm. Yeaton had an authority from the plaintiffs to sell the ship, or that the sale by him was subsequently ratified by the plaintiffs, Joshua, the defendant, ought not to be charged. On the other hand, if they were not satisfied that William made such sale, but believed that he, without authority, aided Joshua and others to take the ship into custody, and send her to the West-Indies, or afterwards participated in the profits of that specutation, the action was well brought against them both/and the plaintiffs were entitled to recover all the money obtained for the ship and her freight, with interest after the receipt until the former judgment ; deducting, however, necessary expenses and what had heretofore been paid. They were also directed to find the amount received by defendant for the ship, and the amount which had been paid to the plaintiffs by Wm. Heaton, in order that the verdict might be reduced, if for the plaintiffs, to the amount of the balance, with interest thereon, provided the court, on further consideration, should entertain an opinion that the plaintiffs could not recover for the freight received on the voyage, because made under British license, and to a colony of an enemy. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs for $24,000, and found that the ship was sold for $12,500, and found the amount paid the plaintiffs to be $3,690 SO cents. This verdict was received, subject to be amended or set aside, as the court might think proper, after advising on the above points.