Benjamin Robbins Curtis

Name: Schooner Freeman v. Buckingham — Opinion of the Court
Author: Benjamin Robbins Curtis

Summary

“Schooner Freeman v. Buckingham — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Benjamin Robbins Curtis. It explores elements such as lading, contracts and owner.

Quotes from Schooner Freeman v. Buckingham… (Benjamin Robbins Curtis)

Benjamin Robbins Curtis, Schooner Freeman v. Buckingham…

“ To state succinctly the legal relations of these parties, it may be said, that the claimant was the general owner of the vessel; that Sylvanus Holmes was owner pro hac vice; that the libellants are holders of the bills of lading, for a valuable consideration parted with, in good faith, on the credit of the bills of lading; but that the bills of lading themselves are not real contracts of affreightment, but only false pretences of such contracts; and the question is, whether they can operate, under the maritime law, to create a lien, binding the interest of the claimant in the vessel. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Benjamin Robbins Curtis, Schooner Freeman v. Buckingham…

“ There can be no implication that the general owner consented that false pretences of cotracts, having the semblance of bills of lading, should be created as instruments of fraud; or that, if so created, they should in any manner affect him or his property. They do not grow out of any employment of the vessel; and there is as little privity or connection between him, or his vessel, and such simulated bills of lading, as there would be between him and any other fraud or forgery which the master or special owner might commit. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Benjamin Robbins Curtis, Schooner Freeman v. Buckingham…

“ For the ground on which we rest the authority of a master, who is either special owner or agent of the special owner, is, that when the general owner intrusts the special owner with the entire control and employment of the ship, it is a just and reasonable implication of law that the general owner assents to the creation of liens binding upon his interest in the vessel, as security for the performance of contracts of affreightment made in the course of the lawful employment of the vessel. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Benjamin Robbins Curtis, Schooner Freeman v. Buckingham…

“ The rights of parties would be far better guarded, and the interests of commerce be far better subserved, by protecting persons who deal with the ostensible owner of a vessel, than by favoring those who seek to reap the rewards of the business, but avoid its risks and responsibilities under the cover of a contract like that set up in this case. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Benjamin Robbins Curtis, Schooner Freeman v. Buckingham…

“ So large a part of the carrying trade of this country is carried on in vessels of which the masters, or other persons, are owners pro hac vice, and the practice of taking security by way of mortgage of vessels has become so common, while, at the same time, the confidence placed in bills of lading as the representatives of property is so great and so important to commerce, that the relative rights of the holders of such documents, and of the general owners and mortgagees of vessels, which are involved in this case, are subjects of magnitude ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Benjamin Robbins Curtis, Schooner Freeman v. Buckingham…

“ This being so, the libellants, if they had been indorsees of the bills for value, would take nothing under them, as they make title to the pretended flour only by showing Holmes shipped it; and bills of lading procured by a felony, by fraud, or forgery, are no evidence of that fact, nor do they estop any one. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Benjamin Robbins Curtis, Schooner Freeman v. Buckingham…

“ This court cannot marshal these assets, and the decree gives the appellant all the rights to the securities that the appellees have, and this is all he can claim in equity.
14. The appellant should be required to pay the costs personally, because the fund realized from the sale of the vessel is insufficient to pay the appellee's claim; and if their costs were decreed to be paid from that fund, it would be in effect to decree that they pay their own costs, which would be manifestly inequitable. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Benjamin Robbins Curtis, Schooner Freeman v. Buckingham…

“ It is upon this rule that the courts hold that a mortgagee out of possession is not liable for supplies; but, if in possession, is liable. McIntyre v. Scott, 8 John. 159; Phillips v. Ledley, 1 W. C. C. R. 226 ”

Benjamin Robbins Curtis

Summary

Quotes from Schooner Freeman v. Buckingham… (Benjamin Robbins Curtis)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature