The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 250: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, August-October, 1918. Page: 21
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
the filing of the libel and by their conduct in the proceeding itself. In
paragraph 3 of their original answer they deny the allegations of ar-
ticle third of the libel, "except the averment by libelant that a charter
party was entered into between the libelant and the steamship Segur-
anca of date May 28, 1915, presently objecting to any and all aver-
ment of the contents thereof, and the said parties will object to any
other proof than the document itself." The original document was
introduced in evidence on the hearing on March 28, 1916. The appel-
lant, as claimant of the steamship Seguranca, filed a cross-libel against
libelant, relying in it upon rights claimed to have been given him
by "the charter party averred in the original libel, and the basis of the
said libel by paragraph three thereof," and asking affirmative relief
based upon provisions of said charter party, and asking that libelant
be required to furnish a bond to respond to the cross-libel under ad-
miralty rule 53 (29 Sup. Ct. xlv), and that proceedings under the orig-
inal libel be stayed until such security was given.
By expressly admitting in his answer the execution of a charter
party between appellant and appellee of like date as the one sued on,
and by relying upon it as a basis for relief in the cross-libel, we think
the appellant is concluded from disputing that the second charter
party was binding on him and the ship, whatever may have been the
original incapacity of Allen and Friedrichs to execute it as agents for
the owners. This would be true, even though, as appears to have been
the case, the original charter party was between the owners and Allen
and Friedrichs, and at a lower rate of freight, and the charter party
on which the libel is based was in its inception a contract between Al-
len and Friedrichs and appellee at a higher rate of freight. Its sub-
sequent adoption by the owners of the Seguranca justified the libel
against them based on it.
 The appellant also contends that, conceding the charter party
to be binding on appellant, the liabihty sought to be enforced by the
libel was a personal one against the owners, and would not sustain a
proceeding in rem against the Seguranca. The lack of authority in
the master to execute the master's five days' note may be conceded,
and still the libel may be sustained in rem. The master, though he
may be the agent of the owner, is under a duty to collect freight
money for the benefit of the charterer, and where the duty exists, his
owners are liable for his acts or omissions in respect to its exercise.
Parsons, Shipping and Admiralty, vol. 2, 28; The Port Adelaide
(D. C.) 59 Fed. 174; Id., 62 Fed. 486; The Maiden City (D. C.) 33
Fed. 715. The master, therefore, had imphed authority to bind the
owners and the ship in the matter of collection of freight money, due
In this case, the owners of the Seguranca themselves made the col-
lection, of the freight money due the charterers on the consignment of
the Pensacola Lumber & Timber Company, and the master's author-
ity is not involved. If the act or omission of the master, when he has
authority to collect freight money belonging to the charterer, is bind-
ing on the owners and on the ship in a proceeding in rem (as was held
in the cases cited), surely the liability of the owners for the making
Here’s what’s next.
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 250: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, August-October, 1918., legislative document, 1918; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38821/m1/36/: accessed July 23, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.