Smith v. Butler

• Decision Date: 20 June 1895
• Citation: 164 Mass. 37,41 N.E. 60
• Parties: SMITH et al. v. BUTLER.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

164 Mass. 37

41 N.E. 60

SMITH et al. v. BUTLER.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 20, 1895

COUNSEL

Eugene P. Carver and Edward E. Blodgett, for plaintiffs.

Chas Theo. Russell and Arthur H. Russell, for defendant.

OPINION

HOLMES, J.

This is an action brought by ship's husbands against a part owner to recover from him his share of disbursements made by the plaintiffs over and above the ship's earnings. One of the plaintiffs, Smith, was also a part owner during the time of the disbursements, although he had sold his share before this action was brought. The disbursements were made in foreign commerce during a series of voyages, and covered whatever was necessary for the transaction of the business. Nothing more specific appears as to their nature. We understand from the report that there are other part owners not settled with.

Under such circumstances the only proper remedy is a bill for an account joining all the part owners who are interested in the decision as to the sums to be paid by them severally. Undoubtedly, part owners of a vessel are not partners in the vessel, and it may be, as has been held in England, that an advance by a ship's husband, distinctly appearing to have been made for the outfit of the vessel alone, ought to be treated as a loan to the several owners individually. Helme v. Smith, 7 Bing. 709. Very possibly there are other cases where a ship's husband can sue the part owners individually, or be sued by them. But even in England it has been held that repairs for a particular adventure may, if not must, be brought into the account as a quasi or true partnership charge. Green v Briggs, 6 Hare, 395, 405, 406; Alexander v. Simms, 5 De Gex, M. & G. 57, 65; Japp v. Campbell, 57 Law J.Q.B. 79, 81. And we believe that there is a general agreement that, subject to some possible exceptions, the sum to be paid between several part owners in respect of a particular adventure must be settled in equity. We are of opinion that this case falls within that principle. Starbuck v. Shaw, 10 Gray 492; Maguire v Pingree, 30 Me. 508; Hardy v. Sproule, 33 Me. 508; Dodge v. Hooper, 35 Me. 536; Bovill v. Hammond, 6 Barn. & C. 149; Vanner v. Frost, 39 Law.J.Ch. 626; Macl.Shipp. (4th Ed.) 106.

This objection to the maintenance of the present action was not pleaded formally as such, but the fact that there were other owners interested in the account alleged, and the inability...