clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search		 search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 380   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

380 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY,
may have thought of the expediency of selling at that time,
and in the mode adopted, they did not give the defendant the
benefit of their greater experience and knowledge on the
subject.
Some circumstances have been relied upon to show that the
defendant, even after the purchase on the 26th of August,
1850, did not regard the vessel as belonging to him, such for
example, as hiring seamen and charging their wages to the
joint concern. This, certainly, he had no right to do, but I
cannot persuade myself he meant by it to show or admit that
he did not claim to be the exclusive owner of the vessel after
the sale. He paid the purchase money to Winter & Latimer,
the plaintiff's agents, and resold without any consultation with
them.
I do not think, therefore, the complainant has a right to
treat the first sale as a nullity and to participate in the profits
upon the resale.
The next question relates to the right of the defendant to
charge commissions on the freights collected by him in San
Francisco.
The evidence of Holmes, the clerk of the complainant, is di-
rectly opposed to any such charge, and that of Nicholson, one
of the former joint owners of the vessel is equally explicit upon
the point, during the period of his ownership. This proof, in
my opinion, is sufficient to overrule the answer. It is true, the
evidence of Nicholson does not relate to the voyage to San
Francisco, but it may, I think, be referred to in corroboration
of the proof of Holmes, which is positive and unequivocal that
the defendant, for his services upon this identical voyage, was
to receive no compensation beyond his pay, which was to be at
the rate of fifty dollars per month. The agreement on the
part of the defendant to make no charge for his services in the
foreign port, was founded on a valuable consideration, as shown
by Holmes. This consideration was a corresponding agreement
by the complainant to charge nothing for his services as agent
and ship-husband in Baltimore, a stipulation which he faithfully
complied with, it appearing by the proof that he collected

  		clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 4, Page 380   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!

An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  Cannot perform flastmod(): Win32 Error Code = 2

Maryland State Archives