Cupisino v. Perez

Supreme Court

Cupisino v. Perez

2 U.S. 194, 1 L. Ed. 345, 2 Dall. 194, 1792 U.S. LEXIS 585

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedSeptember 1, 1792

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2 U.S. 194 (Cupisino v. Perez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cupisino v. Perez, 2 U.S. 194, 1 L. Ed. 345, 2 Dall. 194, 1792 U.S. LEXIS 585 (1792).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court:

—It is clear that the captain can hypothecate his vessel only in case of necessity—such a necessity as this ; that if he did not take up the money, the voyage would be defeated, or at least retarded. This does not appear to have been the case in the present instance. But, in addition to that general rule, it is held, that the captain cannot hypothecate, while there are goods of his own, or of his owner on board. Now if there was no authority to hypothecate the vessel, how can it be pretended that he can make his owners personally liable ? Great mischiefs would ensue if the master had such a power. Upon this ground, therefore, the action must fail. Another point, also, is in favor of the defendant; namely, that this very question has been already decided in the Court of Admiralty. Since, then, we think he had no authority to bind the persons of his owners in a foreign port (and in point of fact he does not seem to have done it, as the writing appears to bind only the captain and the vessel) and since the decision of the Admiralty on the merits, is, in our opinion, conclusive, the Plaintiff ought not to recover.

Verdict for the defendant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the Court:

—It is clear that the captain can hypothecate his vessel only in case of necessity—such a necessity as this ; that if he did not take up the money, the voyage would be defeated, or at least retarded. This does not appear to have been the case in the present instance. But, in addition to that general rule, it is held, that the captain cannot hypothecate, while there are goods of his own, or of his owner on board. Now if there was no authority to hypothecate the vessel, how can it be pretended that he can make his owners personally liable ? Great mischiefs would ensue if the master had such a power. Upon this ground, therefore, the action must fail. Another point, also, is in favor of the defendant; namely, that this very question has been already decided in the Court of Admiralty. Since, then, we think he had no authority to bind the persons of his owners in a foreign port (and in point of fact he does not seem to have done it, as the writing appears to bind only the captain and the vessel) and since the decision of the Admiralty on the merits, is, in our opinion, conclusive, the Plaintiff ought not to recover.

Verdict for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 U.S. 194, 1 L. Ed. 345, 2 Dall. 194, 1792 U.S. LEXIS 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cupisino-v-perez-scotus-1792.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack