The Fortuna

16 U.S. 112, 3 Wheat. 112
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided February 26, 1818·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

16 U.S. 112 (____)
3 Wheat. 112

THE FORTUNA: KRAUSE et al., Claimants.

Supreme Court of United States.

February 26th, 1818. JOHNSON, Justice, delivered the opinion of the court.

Both vessel and cargo, in this case, are claimed in behalf of M. & J. Krause, Russian merchants, resident at Riga. The documents and evidence exhibit Martin Krause as the proprietor of the ship, but the master swears that he considered her as the property of the house of M. & J. Krause, from their having exercised the ordinary acts of ownership over her; and in this belief, he is supported by the fact, that his contract is made with John Krause, by whom he appears to have been put in command of the ship.[(a)] *238] Martin Krause, *who appears in the grand bill of sale, is the same Martin Krause who is member of the firm of M. & J. Krause.

In all its prominent features, this case bears a striking resemblance to the case of The St. Nicholas. A vessel, documented as Russian, is placed under the absolute control of a British house, is dispatched, under the orders of that house, to the Havana, where she is loaded, under the directions of an individual of the name of Muhlenbruck, who assumes the character of agent of the Russian owners; she is then ostensibly cleared out for Riga, but with express orders to call at a British port, and terminate her voyage, under the orders of the same house, under the auspices of which, the adventure had originated and been so far conducted.

Under these circumstances, it was certainly incumbent upon the claimant *113 to show the previous correspondence of the British with the Russian house, and the immediate dependence of the agent at the Havana upon the Russian house for authority, instructions and resources. When we come to compare the correspondence of Muhlenbruck with that of Smith, the agent in the St. Nicholas, we find here also a striking similitude. In that case, the supposed correspondence with the Russian principal is inclosed, *under [*239 cover, to the British house, with a request that they would forward it. In this case, the letters covering the invoice and bill of lading, and directed to M. & J. Krause, is confided to the master, but with express instructions to forward it to the British house, and await their orders.

The material facts on which the court relies, in making up its judgment on the claim of the cargo, are the following: In the first place, there is a general shade of suspicion cast over the whole case, by the fact, that all the material papers relating to the transaction were mysteriously concealed in a billet of wood. Had there been nothing fraudulent intended, these papers ought to have been delivered along with the documentary evidence. But they were not discovered, until betrayed by one of the crew. It is upon the investigation of these papers, principally, that the circumstances occur, which discover the true character of this voyage. Secondly. There is no evidence that this adventure was ever undertaken under instructions from M. & J. Krause. But there is evidence that everything is set in motion at the touch of Bennet & Co., of London. And although they affect to act in the capacity of agents of the Russian house, even the rules of the common law would constitute them principals, in a case in which they cannot exhibit the authority under which they assume the character of agents. Again, there is no evidence that any funds were furnished by the Russian house, for the purchase of this cargo. But there is evidence, and *we think [*240 conclusive evidence, to show, that it was purchased on funds of the British house, remitted through the medium of the cargo of the Robert Bruce, a ship loaded by Bennet & Co., and dispatched, about the same time, for the Havana. In the letter of instructions of the 18th of March 1813,[(a)]*114 the *master is told to proceed to the Havana and await the arrival of Muhlenbruck, in the Robert Bruce, for orders; and in case of any accident befalling that vessel, to apply to the Spanish house of Ychazo & Carrickabura, at the Havana, for further instructions. And in a letter to the house of Lorent & Steinwitz, of Charleston, Bennet & Co. inform them, that the Fortuna is dispatched to the Havana, to the address of Ychazo & Carrickabura, to obtain a freight for the Baltic, and request Lorent & Steinwitz to advise that house, if they could obtain a freight for her to any port in Europe. This correspondence is explained thus: the cargo of the Robert Bruce would probably be sufficient to load this ship with colonial produce; if she arrives in safety, the original adventure can then proceed, but should she be captured or lost, some return freight must then be found for the Fortuna. And accordingly, we find in the letter to Bennet & Co., of the 24th *242] March,[(a)] Muhlenbruck solicits *a credit on Jamaica or Cadiz, as he expresses it, "to be able to settle the surplus of the amount already *115 shipped, which may be left out of the proceeds of the outward bound shipment of the Robert Bruce." Now, the only shipment he had then made was by the Fortuna; and this letter gives advice of that *shipment, as also [*243 of the arrival of the Robert Bruce, and the progress he had made in disposing of her cargo. The passage quoted means, therefore (although somewhat obscurely expressed), "It is possible that the outward cargo of the Robert Bruce may not be sufficient to pay for the shipment already *made by the Fortuna, and you must, therefore, furnish me with a [*244 credit to make up the deficiency." Ychazo & Carrickabura, no doubt, advanced for the purchase of the cargo of sugars, upon the credit of the cargo of the Robert Bruce, and accordingly, we find that house charging a commission for advancing. On these facts, we are satisfied, that the cargo was purchased with British funds.

Lastly, there is no evidence that Muhlenbruck was the agent of M. & J. Krause, and there is abundant evidence of his being the avowed and confidential agent of the British house. We see, in the midst of the greatest anxiety to keep up the character of agent to the Russian house, this gentleman, without being aware of it, does an act which at once shows to whom he holds himself accountable. In his letter to Bennet & Co., of the 24th of March, he requests them to inform the Russian house, that he has made certain advances on account of the ship. But why request Bennet & Co., to do this, if he was himself in immediate connection and correspondence with the Russian house? The fact is, his correspondence with the Russian house was fictitious, and his object was, to inform Bennet & Co., in reality, whilst he feigned to address himself to M. & J. Krause, and thus the letter to the latter house, covering the invoice and bill of lading, although of the same date with that to Bennet & Co., omits this piece of information, which in a real correspondence, would be groundwork of a credit to himself; and contains nothing but the most general information, just enough, in fact, *to [*245 gloss over the transaction, and give it the aspect of reality[(a)].

*116 With regard to the vessel, it would be enough to observe, that if a neutral ship-owner will lend his name to cover a fraud with regard to the cargo, this circumstance alone will subject him to condemnation. But in this case, there are also many circumstances to maintain a suspicion that the vessel was British property, or, at least, not owned as claimed.

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

The Fortuna, 16 U.S. 112, 3 Wheat. 112 (1818).

16 U.S. 112 (The Fortuna) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

LaForce v. Williams City Fire Insurance
43 Mo. App. 518 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1891)
Bayard v. McLane
3 Del. 139 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1840)