Glaspy v. Cabot

Decision Date07 September 1883
Citation135 Mass. 435
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
PartiesJames Glaspy v. Samuel Cabot, Jr. Same v. James Power & another

[Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]

Suffolk. Two actions of tort. The first action was for the conversion of "the hull of the schooner Mary A., the property of the plaintiff." The second action was for the conversion of "one schooner, called the Mary A together with the sails, rigging, anchors, chains, small boat, and other appurtenances belonging to said vessel," alleged to be the property of the plaintiff. The answer in each case denied that the property mentioned in the declaration was the plaintiff's property, and denied any conversion. Trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Pitman, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows:

It appeared that the schooner, with the appurtenances above mentioned, was owned by the plaintiff, who resided in St. John, New Brunswick, where the vessel also belonged and was registered; that she was built in 1868, was of sixty-four tons burden, and was one of a class of vessels called "woodboats" at St. John, which are small schooners with two masts but no bowsprit, and much used in the transportation of wood in the vicinity of St. John, and in or about the Bay of Fundy; that on September 6, 1880, while on a voyage from St. John to Salem, with a cargo of bark, under the command of the plaintiff's son, Charles Glaspy, she went ashore on the bar off Annisquam Harbor, where she remained about twelve hours, and then floated over the bar, having lost an anchor and chain and disabled her rudder, besides suffering other damage, filled, and again drifted ashore on Coffin's Beach, so called, inside the harbor; that she remained there until September 13, 1880, when Patrick Murphy, one of the defendants in the second case, came to Annisquam and offered the master, whom he met at the railway station in Gloucester, $ 80 for her as she lay, with her appurtenances, which offer the master accepted, and thereupon delivered her to Murphy; that the crew of the vessel had left her two days after she went ashore, and, at the time of this sale, the vessel had no one on board; that she was in a damaged condition, and was opened and strained so that the tide ebbed and flowed in her, and she was somewhat imbedded in the sand on the beach; and that the sale was made without a previous survey of the vessel being held, without consultation or advice on the part of the master, and without advertising or offering her for sale by public auction.

The plaintiff's evidence tended to show that the sale by the master was not justified by necessity, and that the master acted improperly in making it. The defendant's evidence tended to show that the schooner could not have been got off and repaired without an expense exceeding her value when repaired, and that the master acted, under the circumstances, for the best interest of all concerned.

It appeared that, some days after the above sale of the vessel, the defendant Power, at Murphy's request, who wrote to him telling him what he had done, and asking him to come there, sent to Annisquam a small vessel owned by him and used by him in his business of wrecking, provided with spare anchors, chains, pumps, and other wrecking material, and manned by a crew of six men employed and paid by him. With this assistance, and the services of one or more persons employed by him at Annisquam, he got the schooner off from Coffin's Beach, recovered her anchor and chain, took her to the other side of the harbor, repaired her partially, and then sent her to Boston in charge of one of the persons employed at Annisquam and of some of the men sent by Power. A spare pump, sent down on Power's vessel, was in constant use on the way to Boston, besides the schooner's own pump. Some weeks after her arrival at Boston, she was broken up by the defendants in the second action; and, on December 30, 1880, her hull was sold by them for $ 200 to the defendant Cabot, who then took possession of and used it. After the vessel arrived at Boston, and before the sale to Cabot, the plaintiff came to Boston and had one or more interviews with the defendants in the second action, at which he demanded the vessel, and made them certain offers of money for her, which were refused. This was the first knowledge the defendants had that the sale was disputed. No demand was made at any time upon the defendant Cabot, and he had no notice or knowledge of the plaintiff's claim at the time of his purchase of the hull. The plaintiff's evidence tended to show that these offers were made in repayment of the amount paid for the vessel, and for salvage claim on the same, and "rather than to have any trouble." The defendant's evidence tended to show that they had expended about $ 200 in getting her off and taking her to Boston and repairing her, exclusive of their own services and the use of the schooner and tools; that the offers made were not sufficient to make good their outlay, and were refused by them in part for that reason. The necessity and amount of these expenditures were contested by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff offered no direct evidence as to the value of the vessel and appurtenances, as she lay on Coffin's Beach, at the time of the sale by the master to Murphy, and no evidence as to the separate value of the hull at any time, except the sale to Cabot. He offered evidence tending to show that, in 1876, he paid $ 600 for one half the vessel; that, in 1877, the other half, with the right to sail her on shares, was sold for the same price, and that, in 1878, he bought this other half for $ 575. The market value of the vessel and appurtenances at St. John, as she was before going ashore, was estimated by the plaintiff's witnesses at from $ 1000 to $ 1400. The plaintiff's evidence further tended to show that the vessel could have been put in as good condition as before she went on the bar at Annisquam for from $ 150 to $ 200.

The defendant's evidence tended to show that the market value of the schooner in Boston or vicinity, as she was before going ashore, would not exceed $ 400 or $ 500, and that this was so partly on account of her British register and the consequent inability to register her as an American vessel and partly on account of her build and model above described, schooners of that description not being in general use and not in demand here. The defendant Power testified that, in Boston, she was not worth more than "the stuff you could get off her," even before her damage; that such soft wood vessels with iron fastenings were not expected to last over nine years. The defendants' evidence also tended to show that the value of the vessel and appurtenances, as she lay on Coffin's Beach at the time of sale, subject to all risks and expenses, would not be over $ 100 or $ 200 for any purpose; and that the repairs, which the plaintiff's witnesses testified could be made at Annisquam for $ 150 or $ 200, would not be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Trustees of Dartmouth College v. International Paper Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of New Hampshire
    • August 5, 1904
    ......66;. Powers v. Tilley, 87 Me. 34, 32 A. 714, 47. Am.St.Rep. 304; Wing v. Milliken, 91 Me. 387, 40 A. 138, 64 Am.St.Rep. 238; Glaspy v. Cabot, 135 Mass. 435; Peterson v. Polk, 67 Miss. 163, 6 South, 615;. Bly v. U.S., 4 Dill. 464, Fed.Cas.No. 1,581. . . To. ......
  • United States v. Toronto, Hamilton Buffalo Navigation Co
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 12, 1949
    ...markets, were considered. See Supplementary Rules 1 and 3, Advisory Board on Just Compensation, 1945 A.M.C. 1382, 1383; Glaspy v. Cabot, 1883, 135 Mass. 435. The question is of course one of degree, and we do not mean to foreclose the consideration of each case upon its facts. Olson v. Unit......
  • Leonard v. Fitchburg R.R.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • January 8, 1887
    ...and the amount of the injury or damage to them, is well supported. Coolidge v. Choate, 11 Metc. 79;Selkirk v. Cobb, 13 Gray, 313;Glaspy v. Cabot, 135 Mass. 435;Bourne v. Ashley, 1 Low. 27. Market value is matter of fact. Swan v. County of Middlesex, 101 Mass. 173;Lawton v. Chase, 108 Mass. ......
  • Leonard v. Fitchburg R.R.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • January 8, 1887
    ...... well supported. Coolidge v. Choate, 11 Metc. 79;. Selkirk v. Cobb, 13 Gray, 313; Glaspy v. Cabot, 135 Mass. 435; Bourne v. Ashley, 1 Low. 27. Market value is matter of fact. Swan v. County of. Middlesex, 101 Mass. 173; Lawton v. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT