Ward v. Ruckman

34 Barb. 419, 1861 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 72
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 6, 1861·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

The right of a master to continue in command of a vessel because he is part owner, can only rest on a contract made with the other owners.

Even if such a contract is made with one captain, it is not an assignable right to be transferred with the share, but is personal with the captain with whom it is made.

Such a contract cannot be unlimited in respect to duration ; and when no time is fixed for its continuance, it must be considered as subject to be terminated by either party on reasonable notice, if the interest of either requires a change. (Story on Partnership, § 432. Card v. Hope, 2 Barn. & Cress. 661.)

The facts proved on the part of the plaintiff do not show a right to recover, and the complaint was properly dismissed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Clerke, Ingraham, and Gould, Justices.]

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

Ward v. Ruckman, 34 Barb. 419, 1861 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 72 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1861).

34 Barb. 419 (Ward v. Ruckman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Campbell v. Jimenes
23 N.Y.S. 333 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1893)