Eber B. Ward, Survivor, &C., Owner of the Steamboat Detroit v. Charles Thompson
Eber B. Ward, Survivor, &C., Owner of the Steamboat Detroit, Appellant, v. Charles Thompson
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court.
The articles of-agreement containing the contract, which, is the subject matter of this suit, are denominated in the libel a charter-party of the steamboat Detroit to respondent. The answer denies that he had chartered the vessel, and-alleges that the writing declared on is a contract of partnership, and *333 not a charter-party. The Circuit Court agreed with the respondent -as to the construction of the contract, and consequently dismissed the bill.
A court of admiralty takes, cognizance of certain questions between part owners, as to the possession and employment of the ship, but will not assume jurisdiction in matters of account between them. (Orleans v. Phœbus, 11 Peters, 175 .) It is not disputed that a contract of partnership in the earnings of a ship comes within the same category. If the party desires ■ an account, his remedy is in a court of chancery. If his complaint be for a breach of some independenl covenant, he should seek his remedy in a court of common law.
A charter-party is defined to be “ a contract by which a ship, or some principal part thereof, is let to a merchant, for the conveyance of goods on. a determined voyage to one or more places.”
A contract of partnership is where parties join together their money, goods, labor, or skill, for the purposes of trade or gain, and where there is a community of profits.
The only characteristics of a charter-party to be found in this contract are, that the subject of it is a ship, and that libellants are owners. There is no letting or hiring of the ship to. the respondent for a given voyage, to be employed by him for his own profit. On the contrary, the Wards contributed a steamboat, to be put into a line for freight and passengérs, which has also a contract for carrying the mail. Thompson contributes the good will of an established line, together with his care, skill, and experience. He is to have the general management of the business, and the selection of the officers and crew; but the clerk, or receiving and disbursing agent, is to be appointed by the Wards, and to be under their control.
The receipts of the steamer are to be applied'— 1st. To pay expenses.
•2d. Insurance.
3d. Six thousand dollars to Ward.
4th. Three hundred to Thompson.
5th. The balance of the profits to be equally divided.
*334 ■ Here we have everything necessary to constitute a partner* ship:
1st. The parties have joined together to carry on a certain adventure or trade, for their mutual profit — one contributing the vessel, the other his skill, labor, and experience, &c.
2d. There is a communion of profits, on a fixed ratio.
Of such a contract, a court of admiralty has no jurisdiction.
The decree of the Circuit Court is therefore affirmed, with costs.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“A court of admiralty takes cogni zance of certain questions between part owners, as to the possession and employment of the ship, but will not assume jurisdiction in matters of account between them”)
Cited by 78 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court5
- U.S. Courts of Appeals23
- Federal District Courts27
- Federal Specialty Courts14
- Historical Federal Courts1
- State Highest Courts4
- State Appellate Courts2
- State Trial Courts1
- Territorial Courts1
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.