TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Scull v. Briddle

Scull v. Briddle, 21 F. Cas. 893 (1808)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania · Historical Federal Courts
Decided
April 15, 1808
Judges
Washington
Citations
21 F. Cas. 8932 Wash. C. C. 1502 Wash. C. C. 200
Headnotes
Case No. 12,569. Shipping — Master—Authority to Sell — Action bt Owner to Recover — Measure op Damages. 1. In cases of extreme necessity, the master may, in a foreign country, sell the vessel and tackle to prevent the property from perishing; but he cannot do this in the country where the owner lives. [Criticised in The Sarah Ann, Case No. 12,-342; The Tilton, Id. 14.054; New England Ins. Co. v. The Sarah Ann, 13 Pet. (38 U. S.) 402.] [Cited in Bryant v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 30 Mass. 554.] 2. A sale of the vessel and her tackle in Maryland, at auction, by the master, who, by misconduct, had got the vessel on shore, gives no title to the purchaser; and in an action of trover and conversion, for the articles purchased, the measure of damages is the real value of the property, and not what they were sold for. [Cited in Indianapolis Ins. Co. v. Mason, 11 Ind. 192.]
Summary
This was an action of trover and conversion, brought for certain sails, rigging, masts, &c., which had belonged to a vessel of the plaintiff, wrecked on the coast of Maryland; and being got on shore, the vessel and tackle were sold at public sale, by the captain, upon notice, and were purchased by the defendant. The plaintiff had hired the vessel to the captain for seventy-five dollars a month, for as long a time as both parties should please. The captain took a freight to Virginia, and on his return, by his misconduct, got her on shore; and having removed all these articles and others to the shore, sold them as above. There was some contradiction in the evidence, as to their safety, in the place to which the captain had removed them. The defence was, that the captain had a legal power to sell; for which were cited, 1 Rob. 70, 71, 127; 3'Rob. 208, 210, 217; Doug. 219. If not so, that the defendant was liable, only, for what the property sold for.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Washington

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice

(charging jury). In cases of extreme necessity, the master may sell in a foreign country, rather than let the property perish; but not in the country where his owner lives; and no case of the sort can, it is believed, be shown. Mischievous would be the consequence, if such doctrines were tolerated. In this case, there was, in fact, no necessity for the sale; for the captain might have got these articles into a place of safety, and ought to have done so; and informed his owner, or rather the owner of the vessel, of her situation; he, the owner, living in Philadelphia. But what makes this case stronger, is, that the master was not the servant of the plaintiff, but the hirer of the vessel; and of course not even an implied authority can be presumed, to warrant the exercise of so extraordinary a step, as selling this property. As to the damages, the real value of the property, and not what the defendant gave, must be the measure of the damages.

Verdict for the plaintiff.

[Por hearing on motion in arrest of judgment, in which the motion was overruled, see Case No. 12,570.]

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1839–1840: 11845–1846: 11897–1898: 118392026peak 1839 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. The New England Insurance Company v. the Sarah Ann38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 387 (1839)
  2. Tyler v. Mutual District Messenger Co.13 App. D.C. 267 (D.C. Cir. 1898)
  3. Elliott v. Clark18 N.H. 421 (1846)

Most recent

  1. Tyler v. Mutual District Messenger Co.13 App. D.C. 267 (D.C. Cir. 1898)
  2. Elliott v. Clark18 N.H. 421 (1846)
  3. The New England Insurance Company v. the Sarah Ann38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 387 (1839)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list