Слике страница
PDF
ePub

In the case of Gordon v. The Massachusetts, voyage, without waiting until the owners and Ftre and Marine Insurance Company, 2 Pick. insurers could be consulted. The court in this Rep. 249, the vessel belonged to Portland, case lay down the rule that the necessity must Maine, and was stranded in St. Domingo, and be so strong as to leave no alternative to the the sale was held justifiable. In Idle v. The master. They say, “The courts have enRoyal Exchange Insurance Company, 8 Taun deavored to limit and guard this branch of the ton, 755, cited in the Massachusetts case just mercantile law with the greatest care; the referred to, a ship from London took the strongest language has been employed,” etc. ground in the River St. Lawrence, below Que. In Hall v. The Franklin Insurance Company, bec: but in this case, it is to be noticed that 9 Pick. Rep. 487, the court say, “There must be two of the owners resided in Quebec, and the something more than expediency in the case; sale was considered to be sanctioned by them; the sale should be indispensably requisite. We which distinguishes it from the ordinary case mean a necessity which leaves no alternative, of sales by the master upon his own authority which prescribes the law for itself, and puts alone. In Hayman v. Molton, 5 Esp. Rep. 65, the party in a positive compulsion to act." the vessel went from London to Jamaica, where The case of Scull v. Briddle, 2 Wash. C. C. she got aground. In Read v. Bonhom, 3 Brod. Rep. 150, was trover for certain sails, rigging, & Bing. 147, a London ship was lost in the etc., which belonged to a vessel that was East Indies.

wrecked on the coast of Maryland. The vessel The case of Thorneley v. Hebson, 2 Barn. & and tackle were sold at a public sale by the Ald. 513, was that of a New York vessel in. master. Mr. Justice Washington laid down the sured in London, and, while on her voyage, so rule of law to be, “that in cases of extreme much injured by stress of weather that the necessity the master may sell in a foreign crew deserted her at sea: she was afterwards country rather than let the property perish, but taken possession of by ships that fell in with not in the country where his owner lives; and her, and was brought into Rhode Island, about no case of the sort, it is believed, can be shown. two hundred miles from New York, where the Mischievous would be the consequence if such owners resided. She was sold under a decree doctrines were tolerated.” See, also, the case of the Admiralty Court, for the salvors, at a of The Schooner Tilton, in the Circuit Court of great sacrifice; and the Court of King's Bench Massachusetts, 5 Mason, 46. * The result (* 3 9 2 held that the owners at New York "were near of these cases is that the legal necessity to enough to have acted in the business at the justify a sale by the master must be sometime;" and might have prevented the sale by ing more than a mere moral necessity; it raising money to release the ship, and there must be such a case of urgency as, in the fore were not entitled to abandon to the under language of the court in Massachusetts, “to writers; and so the sale was not justifiable. leave no alternative;" and the degree of this 391) 'In this case (Cannan v. Meaburn et necessity may be the better understood by the al., 1 Bing., 243) the master sold the cargo, important circumstance mentioned in the under a decree of a vice-admiralty court in the leading cases, viz., that the disasters in those Isle of France, in order to defray the expenses cases happened to the vessels while in foreign of repairing the vessel which was “in a sinking ports, and where the master had no oppor. state.” The court say, "Nothing but an ex- tunity of consulting the owners. treme necessity" will justify the sale, etc. Further: it is not enough that the master This was also a foreign port. The court adopt makes a sale in good faith, although this must the reasoning of Lord Stowell, in the case of accompany the necessity; and this latter must The Fanny and The Elmira, Edw. Admiralty be clearly and indisputably made out. It may Rep. 117, which again supposes a case where be also added that sound policy demands that the ship is in a foreign port, where there is no sales of this description should not be too much correspondent of the owners, etc.

encouraged by affording facilities to masters The leading case of The Gratitudine, 3 Rob. to effect them; especially in cases like the Adm. Rep. 240, is also that of a vessel being present, where they have the means of conin a foreign port, and requiring repairs. The sulting their owners in their own State or master was allowed to hypothecate the cargo. country. The learned judge (Lord Stowell), in his rea- But if the court should think that the facts soning on the question of necessity, by way of prove a case of legal necessity, in respect to illustration, puts the case of a ship driven into the sale of the hull of the vessel, the libelants port with a perishable cargo, where the master still contend that there was no such necessity can hold no communication with the proprie as to the sails and rigging, etc. These had tor (see p. 259), in which case the authority of been taken out, as well as the cargo, and had agent is devolved upon him, etc. A similar il- | been carried on shore in safety. lustration is again put at p. 281, still keeping Instead of selling the sails and rigging on the in view, throughout, the idea of a foreign port spot, under every disadvantage, such as exactas an ingredient in the necessity. In a Massachusetts case (Bryant v. The Com-risk of title, etc., the master should have either

ing cash in hand, and the purchaser to take the monwealth Insurance Company, 13 Pick. Rep., sent them to Boston, where the parties inter543), a vessel was owned and insured in Massachusetts, and stranded on the coast of ested could have sold them to the best advan. Virginia; the cargo was landed, and was not tage, or he should have immediately given in. of a perishable nature, and might have been formation of their having been brought on kept in reasonable safety until the owners and shore, and then waited for orders. If sold at insurers in Massachusetts could be heard from; | Boston, they would have brought one thousand and it was held that the master had not dollars, or upwards; as, according to the usual authority to sell the cargo and break up the estimate, the sails and rigging, etc., are con:

sidered about equal to the value of the hull, or 4. The sale by Folger and others to the half the value of the entire vessel.

claimants was made in Boston, July, 1828. At all events, whatever might have been the The libelants knew the brig was in Boston in value of the sails and rigging, there was no May preceding, but gave no notice to the purnecessity for selling them, as they were already chasers or their agent, and took no steps to landed, with the cargo; and the master might prevent a sale. This, it is contended, is a easily have advised the owners and underwrit- fraud on the claimants, and a court of equity ers, and waited for their orders; which, by the (which a court of admiralty is, with limited usual course of the mail from Boston to Nan- powers) wi not aid a party who thus stands tucket, would have reached him in two days. by, and, by his silence and inaction, permits In point of fact, the libelants did send an another, without notice, to purchase. It is a agent to Nantucket as soon as the loss was fraud on the innocent bona fide purchaser. known in Boston, who offered to pay all ex 5. The demand of the libelants is stale, and penses incurred, etc., if the vessel could be de cannot now be set up and enforced. The veslivered to him; but the sale had already taken sel was abandoned March 29th, 1828; the libel place, and the purchasers refused to relinquish was not filed until September, 1834, more than the vessel to the agent.

six years afterwards. In conclusion, the libelants would respect 6. If the sale be adjudged void for want of fully urge upon the consideration of the court | authority in the master to make it under the the consequences of sanctioning sales of this i circumstances, and not ratified by the acquiesckind, made under circumstances which do not ence of Crosby and others, with the knowledge clearly and unequivocally amount to the strict of the libelants; if the libelants are not estoplegal necessity which the courts have required. ped by their silence and inaction, *and (*394 The greater the facilities that are afforded, the the suit was commenced in due season, then stronger will be the temptation to make such the claimants ask to be allowed the expenses sales fraudulently; and the fraud will be the and reasonable reward for their vendors (the more difficult of detection in proportion as the purchasers and salvors) labor and hazard, 393*] *necessity will be a question to be set which amounts to nearly the sum for which tled more by the opinions of the master and she was sold. other witnesses, than by simple matters of fact. 1. The first point presents two questions And even in cases where there may be no first, as to the authority of a master to sell his direct fraudulent intent, the facility of selling vessel, and under what circumstances; second, will proportionally lessen the efforts of the whether the sale in this case was justifiable. master and seamen to rescue their vessel from As to the authority of a master to sell on the impending danger and loss, and the owners ground of necessity, the law has been fully ex: and underwriters will be made to suffer accord amined in England, and by this court, as well ingly.

as in Massachusetts, New York, and other comThe court must, in this and other cases, give mercial States, within a few years, and has weight to the important considerations of pub been clearly settled. lic policy, or expediency, in laying down prac. We believe it to be correctly stated in the ticable principles which are to govern the con opinion of the Circuit Court in this case (2 duct of parties; and it is manifest that far Sum. R. 206). “I agree at once to the docgreater mischiefs will follow from allowing trine,” says the learned judge (p. 215), “that facilities in making such sales, especially in it is not sufficient to show that the master home ports, than by rigorously restricting them acted in good faith, and in the exercise of his to cases of absolute necessity-such a necessity best discretion. The claimants upon whom as, in the language of the courts, "leaves no the onus probandi is thrown must go farther, alternative."

and prove that there was a moral necessity for Mr. Saltonstall, for the appellees, submitted the sale, so as to make it an urgent duty upon the following points:

the master to sell, for the preservation of the 1. The sale made by the master was, under interest of all concerned. And I do not well the circumstances, justified by necessity. It know how to put the case more clearly than by was made by him in good faith. There was a stating that if the circumstances were such moral necessity for it. The hazard to which that an owner, of reasonable prudence and dis. the brig was exposed was so great, the expense cretion, acting on the pressure of the occasion, that must be incurred in attempting to get her would have directed the sale from a firm opinoff would be great and certain, and the result ion that the brig could not be delivered from of further attempts so uncertain, that the sale the peril at all, or not without the hazard of was justifiable, and passed the property to the an expense utterly disproportionate to her real purchasers.

value as she lay upon the beach, then the sale 2. The sale was assented to and adopted by by the master was justifiable, and must be Crosby and others afterwards, who thus rati. deemed to be made by a moral necessity. And fied the act of the master, and their assignees I consider this to be the true doctrine, deducannot stand in better right than they were. cible from the case of Gordon v. The Massachu.

8. Though the abandonment was not revoked, setts Fire and Marine Insurance Company, 2 but was continued, yet the libelants cannot Pick. R. 249, where the subject is examined accept it. six months after it was made, having very much at large, and with great ability." first refused to accept it, and thus avoid the We believe the doctrine on this subject to be effect of the acquiescence and adoption of the here truly stated, and are willing the conduct master's acts by the assured, by force of the of Captain Phillips should be tested by it. technical rule that an abandonment, when ac The law on this subject was fully examined cepted, relates back to the time when it was of-l in the case cited (2 Pick. R. 249) by the late fered.

distinguished Chief Justice Parker, of Massa

chusetts. It has come under the consideration, be absurd to say that the master shall not sell, of the same court in several subsequent cases, because the vessel, though exposed to immediand has been revised; but, on a careful consid- ate destruction, is in the country of the owner's eration of the cases, it will be found that the residence. And in a country of such vast exdoctrine of the first case has not been varied, tent as ours, the doctrine suggested would be but, on the contrary, has been confirmed. Hall extremely injurious in its consequences. In et al. v. The Franklin Insurance Company, 9 most of the decided cases, as might be supPick. 466; Winn et al. v. The Columbia In. posed, the stranding happened abroad. In the surance Company, 12 Pick. 279; Bryant et al. case of hypothecation, the vessel is supposed to v. The Commonwealth Insurance Company, 13 be in safety. The question is as to funds for Pick. 543.

repairs and outfits, and in such cases it is reaIn the case 9 Pick. 466, the sale was not sonable that in a country of such limited ex. justified; but it was on account of the particu- tent and facility of communication as England, lar circumstances, as each case indeed must de- the owner should be consulted. There can sel. pend on its own circumstances. The ship was dom be a necessity for instant action. Still Ireon a voyage from Boston to New Orleans; land, and it is believed Scotland, are considered struck on the coast of Florida; was got off, and to be foreign countries: and it may be reproceeded to Key West. She did not leak, and marked that Nantucket is farther from the might have remained there in safety until main land than Ireland is from *Eng. (*396 notice of the disaster should have been sent to land, and that the owners were five hundred Boston; and after the sale, the vessel in fact miles from hat island, and in another State. 395*) proceeded to *Boston, with the same The case of Scull v. Briddle, 2 Wash. Cir. master, and without any repairs. It was prop: R. 150, is very briefly reported, and this point erly held that the sale was not necessary, and was not essential to the decision, which was that the insurers were not affected by it. Bry- mainly placed on another ground. ant v. The Commonwealth Insurance Company In Idle v. The Royal Exchange Assurance was the case of a cargo insured from Havana Company, the decision was not placed at all on to Castine, in Maine; the vessel was wrecked the circumstance that one of the owners was about forty miles from Norfolk, but the cargo present; on the contrary, Dallas, Ch. J., rewas taken from the vessel without damage, marked, “I should further say that on the and might have been sent to its place of desti. broad ground of a power to act on a sudden nation for less than fifty per centum of its emergency, in order to save as much as could value; but the master sold it on the beach, be saved from impending ruin, whether the and it was held that there was not a legal sale be by the owner or the captain will make necessity for the sale.

no difference, if the circumstances justified the It is very clear that the sale was not justifia- selling, and the sale was honestly and fairly ble, according to the doctrine in Gordon's case, conducted.” And with another remark of the and as clear that there is no similarity between same learned judge the consideration of this the circumstances of that sale and the sale of part of the case is closed: “Although general the brig Sarah Ann. This subject has come principles are highly valuable when they can under the consideration of this court, and the be of general and extensive application; yet, law is settled on the same principles as in the from the very nature of subjects of this decases cited. Patapsco Insurance Company v. scription, the application of principles, as far Southgate et al. 5 Peters's Rep. 604.

as decided cases furnish any rule, must deIt can hardly be understood to have been pend upon the circumstances of the particular settled in England that a master has authority case." to sell a ship on the ground of necessity, until

It is contended that under the law as settled, the case of Idle v. The Roy. Ex. Ass. Co. 8 the sale of the Sarah Ann was proper and justiTaunt. R. 770, and 3 Moore. In that, and in fiable. This makes it necessary to look to the subsequent cases, it is placed on the same evidence. ground as in this country, and that is, the Was, then, the sale justifiable: Under all ground of necessity-moral, legal necessity, the circumstances, was it necessary for the arising from extreme peril and the danger of captain to sell the property! If it was a valid delay. It follows necessarily from the relation sale, then the title of the claimants is unquesof the master to those interested, that there tionable. This depends on the state of things must be this authority. It supposes a case of at the time. What was the situation of the extreme peril. What is to de done? It will vessel when the captain despaired of getting not do to wait until the owner can be consulted. her off, and determined to unlade the cargo, to There is a necessity for immediate decision and strip the vessel, and to sell the property there! action. In such cases the master may do what It is necessary to look at the evidence. The he might well suppose the owner would do if depositions, on the part of the claimants are present; and, in the exercise of a sound discre- very strong, and we think, conclusive on this tion, sell the vessel and appurtenances.

question. It follows from the principles and the reasons As to the main facts, they are uncontradict. on which this authority rests, that it cannot be ed; on the contrary, as to the exposure of the affected by the circumstance in what country brig, etc., they are corroborated by Pease and the disaster happened; whether in a foreign Gardner, two of the libelants' witnesses. As re. country or not. There is no case in which it marked by the learned judge before whom the is decided that this authority is limited to cases cause was tried (2 Sum. R. p. 216), we must happening in a foreign country. The question look to the state of things as it was at the is, in every case, whether there was an urgent time of the sale, and weigh all the cireumnecessity for the sale-whether a delay would stances; as, the position and exposure of the be extremely perilous. In such a case it would 'brig; the season of the year and chance of storms; the danger from storms; the expense, right to abandon, under the circumstances, of further attempts to get her off; the prob- even if the injury was less than half the value." able chances of success; and the necessity of As to the chance of success in attempts to immediate action on the part of the master. get this vessel off, there is one fact of the utThe object of the captain at first, and as long most importance; that is, the price she brought. as there appeared to be any hope, was to get Consider the circumstances—that this sale was her off. He made use of judicious and strenu only twelve miles from that wealthy and enterous exertions, availing himself of the skill prising maritime place, Nantucket; that amand experience of George Myrick, the wreck ple notice had been given of the sale; that there master, until the gale drove her so far on shore was a large company present; that there was that all further exertion seemed to be hopeless. no collusion or private agreement, but that

As to the place where she lay, on the south the sale was fairly conducted; that several west shore of Nantucket, a reference to a map companies were *formed to purchase, if (*398 or chart will show at once that she was ex- she did not go too high; and yet that the hull posed to the whole reach of the ocean from was sold for $125, and the whole amount of 397*) southwest to *southeast. No spot on sales was only $549! Now, how can this be acthe coast is more exposed to peril; and this counted for ? Clearly, only because it was is not contradicted by a single witness, except, thought, by the best judges on the spot, that perhaps, by Captain Atkins Adams, who went taking into consideration the chances of saving to Nantucket, where he never was before, as the vessel, and the expense that would attend agent for the underwriters, and was within half the attempt, she was worth no more. This a mile of the spot. At the time of the sale, fact is considered to be of the utmost importhe brig lay on an open shore of shifting sand, tance when taken in connection with the opinnearly high and dry; her cargo discharged, ions of the witnesses as to the value of the and the sails and rigging taken on shore to vessel as she lay, and as to her desperate situa. save them.

tion, and the necessity of the sale. And the reThen, as to the probability of a gale. It sult shows that the price given was as much us will be seen by the testimony that storms, and she was worth. The whole cost and expense of severe storms, are frequent at that season of the purchase and repairing the brig was $2,the year. It was in the month of March; pro- 694; and she was sold, after being in Boston verbially blustering and stormy.

two months for sale, for $2,736, little more But the great objection to the sale, is on the than au indemnity to the purchasers. And the ground that it was in the country of the own. vessel was valued just before, in the policy, at ers' residence; they residing in Hampden, only $4,000. Maine, and that they had an agent in Boston. To the actual expense necessary is to be There is nothing in the evidence to show that added the risk that it would be lost by the toThomas Curtis was agent for the owners, and tal loss of the vessel. Great expenses were, known to be such to Captain Phillips, except therefore, necessary, and it was uncertain how for the purpose of obtaining insurance. It is much, and whether they would not be lost. conclusively proved that there was a necessity What, under these circumstances, was the for immediate action, and that a delay for captain to do? We think he ought to have the purpose of receiving instructions from the done just what he did; and, indeed, that his owners or their agent would have been attended whole conduct was prudent and judicious. We with extreme hazard. Information of the state think he ought to have made use of proper of the vessel was sent to Boston, March 23. means and exertion to liberate his vessel. The abandonment was March 29, probably im. That he did. And, afterwards, when she had mediately upon the receipt of the letter. And been driven upon the beach, almost high and it is believed that at that time, in the month of dry, and was then fastened in a place where March, the mail from that island to Boston was six only of twenty-three vessels had been seldom less than a week. There was then no saved, with no means there of making further steamboat communication.

attempts to get her off--and this in a season We contend that Captain Phillips could not of storms, and when a gale would, almost to a have done otherwise than he did, after having, certainty, have been fatal to the vessel--We without success, attempted to get the vessel off, contend that he did right to sell the vessel and without the most gross carelessness. No course appurtenances, and save what could be saved, was left for him but that which he pursued for whom it might concern. He was justified to discharge the cargo, and get on shore the by the necessity of the case. In the strong sails, etc., as soon as possible, sell them language of th Massachusetts court, which there, to save what he could, for whom it might must be reasonably construed, or no sale would

ever be necessary, “there was no alternative." The vessel was, in fact, got off by the pur- But good faith must accompany the necessity, chasers. We are not to judge by the event, and must be clearly made out.

Upon this but by the situation at the time of the sale. point there can be no question in this case The captain may act with perfect propriety in The whole conduct of the captain shows that selling; a ship may be, to all appearance, in a he acted from good motives, and in perfect desperate situation, and yet she may most un good faith. No other motive can be suggested expectedly be saved. That was the case of the for the sale under the circumstances. The case, ship Argonaut. Peele et al. v. The Merchants' therefore, is brought clearly within the prin. Insurance Company, 3 Mass. R. 28. Her situa- ciples of law as settled on this subject. tion was much like that of this brig; it seemed But it has been suggested, on the part of the to be desperate; but she was saved: and yet libelants, that there could have been no necesthe learned judge, in a most able and elaborate sity for selling the sails, rigging, etc., as they opinion, decided that "the owners had a good' might have been stored or sent to Boston.

concern.

But there is no evidence to show that any, claim; and, indeed, they did not at that time. part of the sails and rigging, or of the appur. But they were bound to give notice of their tenances sold, were connected with the vessel situation; and their standing by in silence and at the date of the libel. By the account of inaction, and permitting another to purchase sales it appears that they were sold in small is a fraud, which can receive no favor (* 400 lots to many different persons. The sale was in this court, upon a proceeding in admiralty. six years before the libel; the vessel had been Wendell v. Van Rensselaer, 1 Johns. C. Å. 399*) constantly *employed, and the presump: 344, and cases cited by Kent, Chancellor; Storrs tion, therefor, is that no part of the original v. Barker, 6 Johns. Č. R. 166. sails and rigging remained connected with the 5. The demand is stale and cannot now be brig.

enforced. The libel was not filed till six years It may be observed that, in the case of Idle and a half after the abandonment. v. The Royal Exchange Assurance Company,

If the libelants' title relates back to March, and in most of the cases, the sails, rigging, etc., 1828, for one purpose, it must for another. were separated from the vessel, and sold in dif. They ought then to have enforced their claim ferent lots, but at the same time.

without so great delay. The vessel was owned 2. We say that the sale was adopted by the and employed in Gloucester, a short distance assured afterwards; that they thus ratified the from Boston. She was often in Massachusetts, act of the master, and that the libelants, claim and might with proper diligence have been ing under them, as assignees, cannot stand in seized at an earlier period by the libelants; a better situation than they were.

and if any doubt exists of this, the claimants The sale was on the day when the offer of ask leave to amend their answer and file proof abandonment was made. That abandonment of the fact. They ought not to have delayed was expressly rejected. Whose vessel was she, enforcing their claim almost six years. Wil. then, at the time of the sale? We say, the lard v. Dorr, 3 Mass. 161; The Schooner Adeline, original owners’; and that they, and all per 9 Cranch, 243; The Marianna Flora, 11 Wheatsons claiming under them, must be bound by on, 1. their ratification of the sale, and by their con. 6. In support of the sixth point in the brief duct, as much so as if they had stood by and statement, the claim of amelioration, we refer directed the sale.

to this case. 2 Sum. 220; The Perseverance, 2 We contend that the libelants cannot now be Rob. 239; The Nostra de Conceisas, 5 Rob. 294. permitted to take different ground. Having taken the assignment subsequently to the ac- the court:

Mr. Justice Wayne delivered the opinion of quiescence of Crosby et al. the libelants are bound by it. Courceir v. Ritter, 4 Washing the United States for the District of Massa

This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of ton, C. Č. R. 549; Pierce v. Clark, 1 Barn. & chusetts, and has been submitted to this court Cress. 186; Cairnes v. Bleecker, 12 Johns. Rep. 300; Codwise v. Hacker, 1 Caines R. 526; Marsh on the printed arguments of the counsel for

the libelants and respondents. Those argu: v. Gold, 2 Pickering, 289; Clark's Executors v. ments so entirely occupy the grounds relied Reimsdyke, 9 Cranch, 153.

3. As to the third point, we think it is neces- upon in support of the respective rights of the sary to look to the situation of the parties at parties, and the case has been so fully considthe time of the acceptance of the abandonment, Sumner, 206, that this court has little left for

ered in the court below, as it is reported in 2 in October; and we contend that the respond it to do than to announce its opinion upon

the ents had acquired rights under their purchase, by the conduct of the libelants. They refused points it deems material for its decision. This the abandonment; they disclaimed any owner be better understood and settled by inquiring

will be done briefly. The particular case will ship in or right to the brig; the original own; what is the right of the master to sell a ship.in ers stood by and saw the sale on the beach, and the event of an admitted stranding? This inafterwards in Boston, to the respondents, volves the necessity for a sale, in the circumwithout objection or claim. By this acquistances under which it is done, to make it jusescence the respondents acquired rights as tifiable in the master, or otherwise. All will against the original owners. be defeated by the supposed relation back of agree that the master must act in good faith,

exercise his best discretion for the benefit of the settlement in October, to the offer to all concerned, and that it can only be done upabandon in March, which, at the time, was repudiated? On this point we ask the considera- termined in each case by the actual and im.

on the compulsion of a necessity, to be detion of the court.

4. The conduct of the libelants was a fraud pending peril to which the vessel is exposed; on the claimants. In May, 1828, they knew persons competent to judge, that the vessel

from which it is probable, in the opinion of the brig was in Boston, and for sale, but they cannot be saved. This is, as it is decided in took no steps to prevent it. They did not no

some of the English courts, an extreme necessitify the master and part owner, or Cartwright, ty. The master must have the best informathe agent for selling, or the public, in any way, tion which can be got, and must act with the of any claim, or any objection to the sale. most pure good faith. So says Lord Ellenbo. How were the purchasers to know of any ob- rough in Hayman v. Molton, 6 Esp. 65. It is jection? Suppose they had inquired-to whom also properly termed a moral necessity, because should they go? The selling agent had no when the peril and information concur, as we knowledge of any objection on the part of have just stated, it then becomes an "urgent Crosby et al. or the libelants. She was regis. duty upon the master to sell, for the preserva. tered in the names of the purchasers. The tion of the interest of all concerned.” It respondents had a right to suppose from the should not be termed a legal necessity, as it is conduct of the libelants that they made no in the argument of the .counsel for the libel

« ПретходнаНастави »