Latham v. West

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Latham v. West

3 Mart. 573

DecidedJune 15, 1818

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Mart. 573 (Latham v. West) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Latham v. West, 3 Mart. 573 (La. 1818).

Pincite

Opinion

Martin, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. The defendant is sued as half owner of a vessel, and as agent of the other owner, for wages due to the plaintiff as master of her. The answer denies that the defendant does owe the sum claimed, nor any part thereof in the manner declared in the petition, for that by the negligent, unfaithful, wicked and criminal conduct of the plaintiff, the vessel was wrecked and lost.

There was judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed." The

reason assigned by the judge, á quo, is that the vessel which the plaintiff commanded was lost by his neglect and mismanagement. The testimony of the mate and of the seamen comes up on a statement of facts, and this court is of opinion that the conclusion drawin from it is correct-and it clearly follows that the master of a vessel cannot claim wages, when she is lost by his fault.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the district court be affirmed with costs.

Maybin for the plaintiff, Clark for the defendant.

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

Martin, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. The defendant is sued as half owner of a vessel, and as agent of the other owner, for wages due to the plaintiff as master of her. The answer denies that the defendant does owe the sum claimed, nor any part thereof in the manner declared in the petition, for that by the negligent, unfaithful, wicked and criminal conduct of the plaintiff, the vessel was wrecked and lost.

There was judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed." The

reason assigned by the judge, á quo, is that the vessel which the plaintiff commanded was lost by his neglect and mismanagement. The testimony of the mate and of the seamen comes up on a statement of facts, and this court is of opinion that the conclusion drawin from it is correct-and it clearly follows that the master of a vessel cannot claim wages, when she is lost by his fault.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the district court be affirmed with costs.

Maybin for the plaintiff, Clark for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Mart. 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/latham-v-west-la-1818.