HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0294 and id is 1 raw text is: of his option to take the credit. He was not, therefore, bound within the fourteen
days to pay upon request. The declaration is framed upon the supposition that the
defendant was indebted in a sum of money payable upon request. Now, as the defen-
dant had an option until the expiration of the fourteen days to pay in cash or by a
bill, it is clear, that, during the fourteen days, he was not liable to pay on request,
and, therefore, that this declaration [316] was not proved by the evidence which was
given at the trial.
ALDERSON, B. I am of the same opinion. The printed paper seems to have been
a sort of offer by the plaintiffs, saying-We will either deal with you on the terms of
your paying in cash at the end of fourteen days, or-on the terms of your giving a bill
at three months. The difficulty on the terms was, as to what would be the credit if
the cash were not paid and the bill were not given; but we need not determine that,
as the plaintiffs have sued within the fourteen days during which the defendant had
a right to consider whether hewould pay in cash or take the credit. This the plaintiffs
clearly had no right to do, and therefore the rule for a nonsuit must be made absolute.
The rest of the Court concurred.
Rule absolute for entering a nonsuit.
JESSE, Administrator of Jesse, Deceased v. RoY AND THOMPSON, Executors of Smith.
Exch. of Pleas. 1834.-A seaman entered into articles of agreement to serve on
board a ship bound from the port of London to the South Seas to procure a
cargo of sperm oil, and to return therewith to the port of London, where the
voyage was to end, and he was to receive, in lieu of wages, a 95th share of the
net proceeds of the cargo. By the 6th article of the agreement it was stipulated,
that no one of the said officers and crew shall demand or be entitled to his
share of the net proceeds of the said cargo until the arrival of the said ship or
vessel at London, and her said cargo shall be there sold and delivered, and the
money for the same actually received by the owner; nor unless he shall have well
and truly performed the above-mentioned voyage according to the true intent
and meaning of these articles. The vessel sailed upon the voyage and procured
a cargo; but, on her voyage home, was disabled and condemned in a foreign
port. The cargo was transhipped, and, with the exception of a small portion
sold for repairs, was delivered in London, and the freight upon it paid. The
seaman accompanied the cargo in the vessel to which it was transhipped, but died
before it reached London :-Held, that the representatives of the seaman were
not entitled to his share of the proceeds of the cargo under the agreement, but
only to a quantum meruit for his services on board the second vessel.
[S. C. 4 Tyr. 626; 3 L. J. Ex. 268. Referred to, Appleby v. Myers, 1867, L. R.
2 C. P. 661 ; Button v. Thompson, 1869, L. R. 4 C. P. 341.]
This was an action of debt brought by the administrator of a seaman against the
executors of the owner of [317] a vessel employed in the whale fishery, to recover the
value of one 95th share of a cargo of sperm oil. At the trial before Bayley, B., at the
Summer Assizes for Surrey, a verdict was found for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion
of the Court on a case which stated-
That, on the 22nd of June, 1829, the plaintiff's intestate, Jonathan Arrowgate
Wilson Jesse, duly executed the articles set forth in the declaration, with the
defendants' testator, William Smith, who was the sole owner of the ship Royalist.
That Jesse entered on board the ship as one of the crew, and sailed with the ship
from the port of London on or about the 23rd of the same month of June upon the
voyage mentioned in the articles, under the command of Thomas Steven Harris. The
ship was seaworthy when she set sail, and, during the course of her voyage, the crew
obtained the various quantities of oil hereinafter mentioned, partly in the lifetime of
the said William Smith, and partly after his death; and that 22 tons of oil, parcel of
the quantities produced as hereinafter mentioned, were taken out of the ship and
disposed of by the master to Messrs. Kierulf & Co., of Manilla, for payment of
necessary repairs of the ship, and for stores and other expenses, as mentioned and
explained in the log-book, a copy of which is annexed to this case. That the gross
value of the 22 tons of oil, according to the market price at Manilla on the 1st of
January, 1832, was 1. That the gross proceeds arising from the sale of the
1101
1 0. 'M. & R. 316.
JESSE V. ROY](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0294&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)