Manella, Pujals, and Co. v. Barry

7 U.S. 415, 2 L. Ed. 484, 3 Cranch 415, 1806 U.S. LEXIS 345
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided February 26, 1806·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Marshall, Ch. J.,

delivered the, opinion of the court. — The court has endeavored to bestow on this cause the attention to which it is alike entitled, by its own importance, by the situation of one of the parties, who is a stranger to our language and our laws, and by the ability and zeal with which it has been argued at the bar.

The action claims from the defendant the value of three cargoes of tobacco, purchased by him as the agent of the plaintiffs, which were captured on a voyage to Europe, and condemned as prize. The foundation of the claim is, that he deviated from the • instructions which were given for the government of his conduct, and is, therefore, liable for the loss which has been sustained.

That an agent is bound to pursue the orders of his principals, and is answerable for any injury consequent on his departing from them, however fair may have been his motives for such departure, is a plain principle of law, which has not been drawn into question; and the only inquiry in this case is, has the defendant obeyed or deviated from his instructions ? The circuit court was of opinion, that they sanctioned his conduct, and it is the propriety of that opinion, which is now to be reviewed in this court.

It depends on the true construction of the letter of the 27th of January 1798, written by Bernardo Lacosta, on behalf of the plaintiffs, of which Juan Alonzo Menendez Conde was the bearer, and on the testimony which is stated in the bills of exceptions. *This letter introduces Menendez as the p.,. agent of the plaintiffs, who were principally concerned in the importa- *• tion of tobacco into Spain, and declares a confidence that the defendant will embrace the business as his own, and execute it with his wonted attention.

After some general observations, which relate to the proposed transaction, and which seem to be founded on the idea that the defendant and Menendez are to be associated in the business, the letter becomes more definite. The writer says, “ with this, the said Mr. Menendez takes an order for 20,000 quintals (of tobacco) to be shipped for this place, in seven or eight vessels, and in not less than six, under which condition the insurance will be made here. You will take care to seek captains of fidelity, American born, and that all the crews conform to the most rigorous ordinances. For greater clearness the shipments (las expediciones) will be made according to the following formalities : 1st. You will lade the vessels in your own name, stating that they are on your own account and risk, as an American citizen, and consign, them,” *264 &c. This instruction is followed by ten others, which seem principally designed to conceal the real character of the cargoes, and to facilitate their escape from cruisers. At the close of these instructions, the following words are added : “ I refer you to that which the bearer will communicate to you verbally, respecting this business, who is sent on purpose to superintend the shipment (va solo para presenciar la expedición), and you will, upon the whole, act for the advantage of the interested, taking care to keep this business a secret, in order to prevent a rise in your market, and its being known that it is for foreigners, but always that it is on your own account as an American citizen.”

In the execution of this commission, the defendant shipped two cargoes, the one on board a Danish and the other on board a Moorish vessel, each of which was captured and condemned as prize, the one by the French, and *4.411 ^e other by the English. *These shipments were made with the full J approbation of Menendez, and it is in proof, that American vessels were not, at the time, to be procured.

Before the order was completed, the government of the United States adopted such measures, for repelling the hostile aggressions of France, as to justify an opinion, that open and declared war between the two nations would soon take place. Under the impression of these measures, Mr. Menendez considered the American name as no longer affording a neutral character to the cargo, and directed it to be shipped on account and risk of Charles Longhy, of Genoa, who was a correspondent of the plaintiffs. These instructions were complied with.

The tobacco, so shipped, which came safe, was received without complaint ; but a large quantity, shipped in the Henrietta, was captured by a British cruiser, carried into Halifax, and there condemned as prize. For the price of these three cargoes, this action is brought. The inquiry respecting the two first, will rest both on the instructions given to the defendant, and on the power of Menendez : that respecting the last, rests solely on the power of Menendez.

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

Manella, Pujals, and Co. v. Barry, 7 U.S. 415, 2 L. Ed. 484, 3 Cranch 415, 1806 U.S. LEXIS 345 (1806).

7 U.S. 415 (Manella, Pujals, and Co. v. Barry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Price v. Hartley
S.D. California, 2023
Miller v. Sawant
W.D. Washington, 2022
Sweet Berry Café, Inc. v. Society Insurance, Inc.
2022 IL App (2d) 210088 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2022)
Sidibe v. Sutter Health
N.D. California, 2021
(PC) McCoy-Gordon v. Cota
E.D. California, 2020
Ferguson v. Porter
3 Fla. 27 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1850)