Snell, Stagg, & Co. v. Rich

New York Supreme Court

Snell, Stagg, & Co. v. Rich

1 Johns. 305

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1806

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 1 Johns. 305 (Snell, Stagg, & Co. v. Rich) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Snell, Stagg, & Co. v. Rich, 1 Johns. 305 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1806).

Pincite

Opinion

Livingston, J.

Do you admit the owner to be liable ?

Bogert. I do not mean that; but only that the intermediate person is not liable.

Kent, C. J. I shall give no opinion as to the liability of the owner.

It is universally understood that the pilot, while on board, has the absolute and exclusive controul of the ship ; and I am prepared to say, that if the master had been on board, he would not have been responsible.

Per Curiam.

As the master was not on board, he, certainly, was not master at the time of the accident. The pilot must be considered as master pro hac vice. The defendant, therefore, is not liable as master; and it does not appear that he was owner. But we give no opinion whether the owner would be liable or not.

Judgment of nonsuit.

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