Pinto v. Atwater

1 Day 193
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedJuly 1, 1804
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 1 Day 193 (Pinto v. Atwater) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pinto v. Atwater, 1 Day 193 (Colo. 1804).

Opinion

By the Court.

The question is, whether the plaintiffs below shall be entitled to freight, according to the [205]*205voyage performed, without any regard -to the salvage 'paid : or"wnether the salvage shall diminish. the freight in such manner, that the plaint iffs shall receive no more than a rateable freight for the property actually saved to the defendant. By the judgment of the Superior Court, the freight has been allowed according to the voyage performed, without reference to the salvage paid ; whereas, ⅛ the opinion of this Court, a rateable freight only should have been allowed, in proportion to the property nctunllv saved to the defendant.

liv the laws of 'nations, salvage is payable to the recap-tors of a vessel, on vessel and cargo. In tills instance, the receptors were entitled to salvage ; and the compromise entered into, by the defendant, with the agent of the receptors, v, as neccssarv, cm ids part, lor the security of his property, raid beneficial to all parties concerned, by sa- ■ iv.g the cost of admiralty process, and a sale of the property. The salvage is a loss, to which, by law, vessel, freight, and cargo are liable to contribute ; and, therefore, diminishes freight, in such manner, that the plaintiffs should recover no more than a rateable proportion oil the property actually saved to the defendant.

For these reasons, the judgment of the Superior Court was reversed. The defendants in error then made a written motion, that this Court would enter judgment ■for sv.cb sum, as they were, bylaw, entitled to rccot cv. This motion was denied, ami the cause remanded to the Superior Court, that such further proceedings might fee had therem, r.s to law doth appertain.

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

Related

Hayward v. Bath
35 N.H. 514 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1857)
Escopiniche v. Stewart
2 Conn. 262 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1817)
Coffin v. Storer
5 Mass. 252 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1809)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Day 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinto-v-atwater-conn-1804.