Manter v. Holmes

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Manter v. Holmes

51 Mass. 402

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1845

StatusPublished

This text of 51 Mass. 402 (Manter v. Holmes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Manter v. Holmes, 51 Mass. 402 (Mass. 1845).

Pincite

Opinion

Shaw, C. J.

The court are of opinion that the freight was legally due to Ellis, the master, who had taken the vessel on shares, and that he alone can maintain an action for it. The fact that the defendants had a demand against Ellis, which they could set off in an action by him, shows the importance of adhering to the rule of law, and that it is not a mere technical objection- to the form of proceeding. We are inclined to think that such would be the rule, had the plaintiffs held the ordinary relation of general owners, and Ellis that of master of a seeking and freighting vessel. Lewis v. Hancock, 11 Mass. 72. But the case goes further, and shows that Ellis had taken the vessel on shares, and of course was owner pro hac vice. And this, we think, renders it quite clear that he alone could legally demand and sue for this freight. Reynolds v. Toppan, 15 Mass. 370. Taggard v. Loring, 16 Mass. 336. Thompson v. Hamilton, 12 Pick. 425.

Judgment for the defendants.

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

Shaw, C. J.

The court are of opinion that the freight was legally due to Ellis, the master, who had taken the vessel on shares, and that he alone can maintain an action for it. The fact that the defendants had a demand against Ellis, which they could set off in an action by him, shows the importance of adhering to the rule of law, and that it is not a mere technical objection- to the form of proceeding. We are inclined to think that such would be the rule, had the plaintiffs held the ordinary relation of general owners, and Ellis that of master of a seeking and freighting vessel. Lewis v. Hancock, 11 Mass. 72. But the case goes further, and shows that Ellis had taken the vessel on shares, and of course was owner pro hac vice. And this, we think, renders it quite clear that he alone could legally demand and sue for this freight. Reynolds v. Toppan, 15 Mass. 370. Taggard v. Loring, 16 Mass. 336. Thompson v. Hamilton, 12 Pick. 425.

Judgment for the defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 Mass. 402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manter-v-holmes-mass-1845.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack