Fargusson v. Winslow

• Decision Date: 19 December 1885
• Citation: 34 Minn. 384
• Parties: OWEN FARGUSSON <I>vs.</I> R. K. WINSLOW.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

34 Minn. 384

OWEN FARGUSSON vs. R. K. WINSLOW.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

December 19, 1885.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for St. Louis county, Stearns, J., presiding, refusing a new trial. The charge of the court referred to in the opinion was as follows: "If this delay in loading was occasioned simply by the vessel waiting her turn to load at the elevator, and she had her turn with other vessels according to their arriving and reporting, then the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict of $200, with interest from the 29th day of October, 1884. If you are satisfied that the only delay was occasioned by the vessel waiting her turn at the elevator, and that she had her turn in the regular order with other vessels, then you will give a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed."

Ensign & Cash, for appellant.

White & Reynolds, for respondent.

DICKINSON, J.

The plaintiff chartered the steam-barge Egyptian, owned by the defendant, to transport a cargo of wheat from Duluth to Buffalo. There was no special agreement as to the time of delivering or receiving the cargo. The plaintiff was advised, on the 29th of September, that the vessel was ready to take in cargo, but, by reason, as the jury has determined, of other vessels then waiting at the elevators to be loaded, she did not receive her cargo until the vessels so preceding her had been loaded, which was not until the fifth of October. The plaintiff had grain in the elevators for delivery, and ordered it to be delivered. He had not, however, any control over the management of the elevators. This action relates to a claim of the defendant for demurrage on account of such detention. After the vessel arrived at Buffalo, the cargo, consisting of more than 50,000 bushels of wheat, was detained, and a delivery refused until the plaintiff should pay a claimed demurrage of $200. To release the grain from such detention the plaintiff paid that sum under protest, and now prosecutes this action to recover back the money so paid.

It is not claimed here that the defendant was in fact entitled to the demurrage; and upon the exceptions taken to the charge of the court as given, and to the refusals to charge as requested, only the following questions are presented for decision: (1) Did the claim for demurrage, to which the claimant was not in fact entitled, although asserted in good faith, constitute a lien upon the cargo, and give a legal right to detain the same until such claim should be adjusted or determined? (2) Is the payment of such claim, under protest, with knowledge of all the facts, and for the purpose of releasing the cargo from such detention, to be deemed a merely voluntary payment, or as one made under such circumstances of compulsion or duress that it may be recovered back? (3) Was the court justified in taking from the jury the question as to whether the payment in question was made under duress, or was voluntary?

1. The first of these questions we answer in the negative. The law gives the lien as a security only where...