Smith v. Oakes
| Decision Date | 01 April 1886 |
| Citation | 5 N.E. 824,141 Mass. 451 |
| Parties | SMITH v. OAKES. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
H.N. Sheldon, for defendant.
F.S Hesseltine, for plaintiff.
The original master having fallen sick, and left the ship during the voyage, the first question for determination is whether the defendant, in the absence of an express contract to that effect, and merely by virtue of his relation as a new and substituted master for the remainder of the same voyage, is held bound by law upon an implied contract to pay to the seamen their stipulated wages, so as to be personally liable in an action at law for their wages earned after his accession to the office; and we are of opinion that he is. The liability rests on the peculiar relation which the master sustains to the seamen, the owners, and the ship, and not upon general principles of agency. The agreement in the shipping articles is with the master, or whoever shall go for master; and crew agree to be obedient to the lawful commands of the master, or of any person who shall lawfully succeed him. Rev.St.U.S., Schedule A, after section 4612. Wages already earned do not become due at once, upon a change of master, and, unless the new master is liable, the remedy by an action against the master after the wages fall due would often be practically worthless, as the original master might be dead, or in a distant port. The new master represents the owners and the ship, and has charge of the funds from which the wages are usually and naturally paid. He knows or has the means of knowing exactly what the wages will be, and can easily protect himself from risk.
It is not necessary to determine now whether his personal liability extends so far as to include wages earned before he took command. But when a new master takes upon himself the unfinished portion of a voyage, it is no hardship upon him to hold him bound by law to assume the contract for the payment of such wages as may thereafter be earned by the seamen under his command, who on their part are bound by contract to obey him, unless, indeed, he does something to show that such is not his intention. The case of Fitzsimmons v. Baxter, 3 Daly, 81, is closely in point; and, while other decisions are not very explicit upon this question, the prevailing opinion of courts and text-writers has been in the same direction. See Bishop v. Shepherd, 23 Pick. 495; Temple v. Turner, 123...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Everett v. United States
... ... 443; Skolfield v ... Potter, 22 Fed.Cas. 299; Russell v. Rackett ... (D.C.) 46 F. 200; Wysham v. Rossen, 11 Johns ... (N.Y.) 72; Smith v. Oakes, 141 Mass. 551, 5 N.E ... 824, 55 Am.Rep. 487; Temple v. Turner, 123 Mass ... 125; Calvin v. Huntley, 178 Mass. 29, 59 N.E. 435 ... ...
-
McCall v. United States Shipping Bd. Emergency Fleet Corp., 6329.
...U.S. 284, 21 Sup.Ct. 395, 45 L.Ed. 531. The funds of the ship were honestly administered, so far as disclosed by both masters. While Smith v. Oakes, supra, held that payments are properly applied to the oldest claims of service, the facts there disclosed a different relation of the parties.......
-
Calvin v. Huntley
...action at common law against the master or owner of the vessel. Temple v. Turner, 123 Mass. 125, 128, and cases cited; Smith v. Oakes, 141 Mass. 451, 454, 5 N. E. 824;Leon v. Galceran, 11 Wall. 185, 20 L. Ed. 74. And such an action is within the exceptions named in Rev. St. U. S. § 4547, ‘t......
-
Calvin v. Huntley
... ... common law against the master or owner of the vessel ... Temple v. Turner, 123 Mass. 125, 128, and cases ... cited; Smith v. Oakes, 141 Mass. 451, 454, 5 N.E ... 824; Leon v. Galceran, 11 Wall. 185, 20 L.Ed. 74 ... And such an action is within the exceptions named in ... ...