Tuckerman v. Brown

New York Supreme Court

Tuckerman v. Brown

17 Barb. 191, 1853 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 195

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 5, 1853

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 17 Barb. 191 (Tuckerman v. Brown) 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

Tuckerman v. Brown, 17 Barb. 191, 1853 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 195 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1853).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, Harris, J.

The owner of a vessel is never made liable as a carrier, merely by virtue of his ownership. The vessel must also have been in his employment, so as to make him a party to the contract for carriage. Thus, if the owner charter his vessel to another, the charterer alone is liable. The criterion of liability, therefore, is not ownership, but employment. The party who has the control of the vessel, and in whose business it is engaged, is regarded as the owner pro hac vice, and as such is answerable to the freighter. (See 3 Kent, 138, and cases there cited.) Nor is it material to the question of liability whether the owner of the vessel receive for its use a stipulated sum, or a share of its earnings. In either case, the party who, by the contract with the owner, is entitled to the “ possession, command and navigation of the ship,” and not the ovnxer., is liable in an action for not delivering goods. Cutler v. Winne, (6 Pick. 335,) cited in the opinion of the judge who [193]*193tried the case, is to this effect. (See also Thompson v. Hamilton, 12 Pick. 424. Taggard v. Loring, 16 Mass. Rep. 336. Reynolds v. Tappan, 15 Id. 370. Manter v. Holmes, 10 Metcalf, 402.) The judgment at the circuit was right, and should be affirmed.

[Albany General Term, September 5, 1853.

Watson, Wright and Harris, Justices.]

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

By the Court, Harris, J.

The owner of a vessel is never made liable as a carrier, merely by virtue of his ownership. The vessel must also have been in his employment, so as to make him a party to the contract for carriage. Thus, if the owner charter his vessel to another, the charterer alone is liable. The criterion of liability, therefore, is not ownership, but employment. The party who has the control of the vessel, and in whose business it is engaged, is regarded as the owner pro hac vice, and as such is answerable to the freighter. (See 3 Kent, 138, and cases there cited.) Nor is it material to the question of liability whether the owner of the vessel receive for its use a stipulated sum, or a share of its earnings. In either case, the party who, by the contract with the owner, is entitled to the “ possession, command and navigation of the ship,” and not the ovnxer., is liable in an action for not delivering goods. Cutler v. Winne, (6 Pick. 335,) cited in the opinion of the judge who [193]*193tried the case, is to this effect. (See also Thompson v. Hamilton, 12 Pick. 424. Taggard v. Loring, 16 Mass. Rep. 336. Reynolds v. Tappan, 15 Id. 370. Manter v. Holmes, 10 Metcalf, 402.) The judgment at the circuit was right, and should be affirmed.

[Albany General Term, September 5, 1853.

Watson, Wright and Harris, Justices.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Barb. 191, 1853 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tuckerman-v-brown-nysupct-1853.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack