Lawrence v. New Bedford Commercial Ins.

In the present case, the abandonment having been made in due season for a total loss by the perils of the seas, and a verdict having been found in favor of the plaintiff for a total loss, it is clear, that from the time to which the abandonment relates, that is, from the time of the condemnation and sale of the Boston, the master became, and was the agent of the underwriters. It follows, that all his acts, whether rightful or wrongful, in the shipment and sale of the oil, and in the investment of the proceeds, in coffee, are to be treated as acts of che agent of the underwriters and not of the assured, and that the underwriters are solely responsible therefor. Still, however, as, in the present case, it is thought desirable by all the parties to have the questions raised finally disposed of, in order to prevent future litigation or controversy, I have no objection to state my own view of them. In the first place, I deem it perfectly clear, that Capt. Hempstead’s necessary expenses at the Bay of Islands, in taking care of the property insured while there, and until the shipment of the oil in the Henry Tuke, together with a reasonable compensation for his services, are to be a charge upon the underwriters. If his accompanying the shipment of the oil was a reasonable and prudent act for the benefit of the underwriters, and if the oil had been carried to New York, I have no doubt, that his passage to New York in the Henry Tuke ought also to be a charge upon' the underwriters. The difficulty, that arises, is from the sale of the oil at Bio Janeiro, and the investment of the proceeds in coffee there. If that sale was a highly reasonable and prudent act, such as the master ought, in pursuance of his duty, to have adopted for the benefit of his principals (the underwriters), then his passages to Bio and from thence to New York, in the Henry Tuke, ought also to be- a charge upon the underwriters, as well as his expenses at Bio Janeiro, and also a reasonable commission for his services in the sale and investment of the proceeds in the coffee. Now, certainly, a master of a ship, in a case circumstanced like the present, has not a right, as a matter of course, to dispose of the property confided to his care, and to invest the proceeds thereof in other goods upon speculation. There must be either a necessity for the sale, or, at least, it must, with reference to the voyage and the nature of the property, be in a very high degree expedient; otherwise it will be treated as a tortious conversion. If, on the other hand, the master does make a sale, without such necessity or high expediency, and it turns out to be advantageous to the parties interested, and they adopt the acts of the master, and receive the property without reserve or objection, that will amount to a ratification, and they must then take the property or its proceeds cum onere. If, on the other hand, they receive the property, or its proceeds, reserving all their rights, and waiving no objections, then they are entitled to receive the proceeds, without any charges upon them, if the proceeds do not yield a profit to them beyond the fair value of the property shijjped, *78and so improperly converted, as it would have been on its arrival at the original port of destination. But if a profit ultra such value has come to the hands of the underwriters; by reason of the new investment, then I think that' if the master has acted without fraud, and under a mere mistake of judgment, he ought to be entitled, out of those profits, to receive his reasonable expenses, and also a reasonable compensation for his services, not exceeding those profits. Now, there is nothing in the facts and circumstances presented by the report in the present case to enable me to pass any judgment upon these matters. They must, if they furnish grounds for controversy between the parties, be specially ascertained by the auditors, and with their judgment thereon be reported to the court.

These remarks, I believe, are sufficient to furnish an answer to all the objections and suggestions made at the argument, except those which respect Mr. Lawrence’s commissions, and his claim for the premium upon the new policy on the oil from the Bay of Islands. The latter claim is surrendered by his counsel, and is clearly unmaintainable. The former is silently abandoned by the counsel for the defendants; and, indeed, as the sale was made by Mr. Lawrence, with the consent of the underwriters, it is clearly a charge which ought to be borne by them.