Petrel Guano Co. v. Jarnette

• Decision Date: 01 January 1885
• Citation: 25 F. 675
• Parties: PETREL GUANO CO. and others v. JARNETTE and others.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

25 F. 675

PETREL GUANO CO. and others v. JARNETTE and others.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. North Carolina.

November Term, 1885

Russell & Ricaud, for plaintiffs.

J. D Bellamy and A. G. McGrath, for defendants.

SEYMOUR J.

This is a suit in equity, brought by partners resident in New York against a member of the firm resident in North Carolina, to recover partnership assets; and the main subject of the controversy has been the disposition of three cargoes of guano shipped by the defendant Jarnette from the island of Roncados in the Caribbean sea to Wilmington. Jarnette was the agent of the copartnership, as well as a member of the firm and was in charge of the partnership operations on the island of Roncados. The plaintiffs furnished the money capital agreed to send shipping to Roncados for the guano, and employed an agent other than Jarnette to attend to the shipments, which were to be made to New York or Philadelphia. It is averred by the plaintiffs that, in violation of the written contract between the copartners, and for the purpose of defrauding them, the partner who is made a defendant shipped the guano to Wilmington to his own order, with the purpose of disposing of the same and defrauding them; and collusion and the manufacture of false and fraudulent charges for advances are charged against the other defendants. The defendant, on the other hand, replies that he was abandoned by his copartners; left, with his laborers, without supplies, on a desert island; compelled to risk his life in a long sea voyage in an open boat to Aspinwall, the nearest port; and that his acts which were not in pursuance of the contract were rendered necessary by the conduct of the plaintiffs and the exigencies of his position. The other defendants have answered, denying the fraud and combination, of which indeed no proof was offered. All the questions arising in the case have been decided by an interlocutory opinion rendered by the court, and a settlement of the matters in dispute founded thereon, excepting one, viz., the claim of the defendant, master of the British vessel, the Iolanthe, for freight. This is resisted by the plaintiffs on the ground that Roncados is an island belonging to the United States, and within the provision of its coasting laws, and that it was illegal to ship goods therefrom to any other port in this country. The necessary consequence of the illegality of such shipments is, it is claimed, that no freight was earned by the Iolanthe.

The island of Roncados is one of what are known as the 'guano Islands' of the United States. By section 5575 of the Revised Statutes it is enacted that 'the introduction of guano from such islands' 'shall be regulated as is the coasting trade between different parts of the United States, and the same law shall govern the vessel concerned therein. ' The policy of the United States, as developed in its statutory regulation of the coasting trade, is to entirely exclude the use of foreign bottoms from such employment. By the Revised Statutes (section 4219) a duty of 50 cents a ton is imposed on a vessel, not of the United States, which shall be entered in one district from another, having on board merchandise taken in one district to be delivered in another. This duty is called by the assistant secretary of the treasury, in his communication to the collector of the port of Wilmington, in the case of The Iolanthe, a penal duty, and its amount shows that it is intended to be prohibitory. The Revised Statutes (section 4311) enacts that 'vessels enrolled, and having a license in force, and no others, shall be entitled to the privilege of vessels employed in the coasting trade. ' Section 4131 enacts that vessels are registered pursuant to law, and no others except such as shall be duly qualified according to law, shall be deemed vessels of the United States; and section 4132, that vessels built within the United States (or captured, etc.) and belonging wholly to citizens thereof, 'and no others, may be registered. ' Section 4347 enacts 'that no merchandise shall be transported, under penalty of forfeiture thereof, from one port of the United States to another port of the United States, in a vessel belonging wholly or in part to a subject of any foreign power; but this section shall not be construed to prohibit the sailing of any foreign vessel from one to another port of the United States; provided, that no merchandise other than that imported in such vessel from some foreign port shall be carried from one port or place to another in the United States.'

It has been suggested that the island of Roncados is not a port, and therefore does not come within the penalty imposed. I do not know whether the island contains any 'haven' or 'place where vessels may safely ride at anchor. ' It is certain that it has no port of entry. But the word 'port' in the section evidently means any place from which merchandise may be shipped. Such is the statutory construction given to the word in Rev. St. Sec. 2767, and in section 4347 it is used as an alternative word for 'place.' Any other construction of the word would defeat the evident intent of the statute, besides putting a narrow and forced interpretation upon it. But...