Scull v. Briddle

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania

Scull v. Briddle

21 F. Cas. 893, 2 Wash. C. C. 150

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 15, 1808

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 21 F. Cas. 893 (Scull v. Briddle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scull v. Briddle, 21 F. Cas. 893, 2 Wash. C. C. 150 (circtdpa 1808).

Pincite

Opinion

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice

(charging jury). In cases of extreme necessity, the master may sell in a foreign country, rather than let the property perish; but not in the country where his owner lives; and no case of the sort can, it is believed, be shown. Mischievous would be the consequence, if such doctrines were tolerated. In this case, there was, in fact, no necessity for the sale; for the captain might have got these articles into a place of safety, and ought to have done so; and informed his owner, or rather the owner of the vessel, of her situation; he, the owner, living in Philadelphia. But what makes this case stronger, is, that the master was not the servant of the plaintiff, but the hirer of the vessel; and of course not even an implied authority can be presumed, to warrant the exercise of so extraordinary a step, as selling this property. As to the damages, the real value of the property, and not what the defendant gave, must be the measure of the damages.

Verdict for the plaintiff.

[Por hearing on motion in arrest of judgment, in which the motion was overruled, see Case No. 12,570.]

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

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice

(charging jury). In cases of extreme necessity, the master may sell in a foreign country, rather than let the property perish; but not in the country where his owner lives; and no case of the sort can, it is believed, be shown. Mischievous would be the consequence, if such doctrines were tolerated. In this case, there was, in fact, no necessity for the sale; for the captain might have got these articles into a place of safety, and ought to have done so; and informed his owner, or rather the owner of the vessel, of her situation; he, the owner, living in Philadelphia. But what makes this case stronger, is, that the master was not the servant of the plaintiff, but the hirer of the vessel; and of course not even an implied authority can be presumed, to warrant the exercise of so extraordinary a step, as selling this property. As to the damages, the real value of the property, and not what the defendant gave, must be the measure of the damages.

Verdict for the plaintiff.

[Por hearing on motion in arrest of judgment, in which the motion was overruled, see Case No. 12,570.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 F. Cas. 893, 2 Wash. C. C. 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scull-v-briddle-circtdpa-1808.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack