Eber B. Ward, Survivor, &C., Owner of the Steamboat Detroit v. Charles Thompson

63 U.S. 330, 16 L. Ed. 249, 22 How. 330, 1859 U.S. LEXIS 731
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedDecember 27, 1859
StatusPublished
Cited by93 cases

This text of 63 U.S. 330 (Eber B. Ward, Survivor, &C., Owner of the Steamboat Detroit v. Charles Thompson) 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
Eber B. Ward, Survivor, &C., Owner of the Steamboat Detroit v. Charles Thompson, 63 U.S. 330, 16 L. Ed. 249, 22 How. 330, 1859 U.S. LEXIS 731 (1859).

Opinion

Mr. Justice GRIER

delivered the opinion of the court.

The articles of-agreement containing the contract, which, is the subject matter of this suit, are denominated in the libel a charter-party of the steamboat Detroit to respondent. The answer denies that he had chartered the vessel, and-alleges that the writing declared on is a contract of partnership, and *333 not a charter-party. The Circuit Court agreed with the respondent -as to the construction of the contract, and consequently dismissed the bill.

A court of admiralty takes, cognizance of certain questions between part owners, as to the possession and employment of the ship, but will not assume jurisdiction in matters of account between them. (Orleans v. Phœbus, 11 Peters, 175.) It is not disputed that a contract of partnership in the earnings of a ship comes within the same category. If the party desires ■ an account, his remedy is in a court of chancery. If his complaint be for a breach of some independenl covenant, he should seek his remedy in a court of common law.

A charter-party is defined to be “ a contract by which a ship, or some principal part thereof, is let to a merchant, for the conveyance of goods on. a determined voyage to one or more places.”

A contract of partnership is where parties join together their money, goods, labor, or skill, for the purposes of trade or gain, and where there is a community of profits.

The only characteristics of a charter-party to be found in this contract are, that the subject of it is a ship, and that libellants are owners. There is no letting or hiring of the ship to. the respondent for a given voyage, to be employed by him for his own profit. On the contrary, the Wards contributed a steamboat, to be put into a line for freight and passengérs, which has also a contract for carrying the mail. Thompson contributes the good will of an established line, together with his care, skill, and experience. He is to have the general management of the business, and the selection of the officers and crew; but the clerk, or receiving and disbursing agent, is to be appointed by the Wards, and to be under their control.

The receipts of the steamer are to be applied'—

1st. To pay expenses.

•2d. Insurance.

3d. Six thousand dollars to Ward.

4th. Three hundred to Thompson.

5th. The balance of the profits to be equally divided.

*334 Here we have everything necessary to constitute a partner* ship:

1st. The parties have joined together to carry on a certain adventure or trade, for their mutual profit — one contributing the vessel, the other his skill, labor, and experience, &c.

2d. There is a communion of profits, on a fixed ratio.

Of such a contract, a court of admiralty has no jurisdiction.

The decree of the Circuit Court is therefore affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Federal Insurance Co. v. Speedboat Racing Ltd.
200 F. Supp. 3d 312 (D. Connecticut, 2016)
Missouri Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. M/V Ste. Genevieve
867 F. Supp. 879 (E.D. Missouri, 1994)
Economu v. Bates
222 F. Supp. 988 (S.D. New York, 1963)
Stathos v. Maro
134 F. Supp. 330 (E.D. Virginia, 1955)
Petty v. First National Bank of Quitman
278 S.W.2d 361 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1955)
James v. Commissioner
16 T.C. 930 (U.S. Tax Court, 1951)
Ginsburg Et Ux. v. Arnold
185 F.2d 913 (Fifth Circuit, 1950)
Hanson v. Birmingham
92 F. Supp. 33 (N.D. Iowa, 1950)
Miller v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
183 F.2d 246 (Sixth Circuit, 1950)
Crossley v. Campbell
87 F. Supp. 862 (N.D. Illinois, 1949)
Wilson v. Commissioner
13 T.C. 409 (U.S. Tax Court, 1949)
Commissioner v. Culbertson
337 U.S. 733 (Supreme Court, 1949)
Lawton v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
164 F.2d 380 (Sixth Circuit, 1947)
State Ex Rel. McCrory v. Bland.
197 S.W.2d 669 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1946)
Marks v. Commissioner
6 T.C. 659 (U.S. Tax Court, 1946)
Commissioner v. Tower
327 U.S. 280 (Supreme Court, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 U.S. 330, 16 L. Ed. 249, 22 How. 330, 1859 U.S. LEXIS 731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eber-b-ward-survivor-c-owner-of-the-steamboat-detroit-v-charles-scotus-1859.