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 381   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

PETERS VS. SPEIGHTS. 381
freight in Baltimore amounting to upwards of five thousand
dollars, and made disbursements exceeding four thousand dol-
lars, for which he made no charge. Under these circumstances
the defendant cannot be allowed to charge as against Peters
any thing for his services on the voyage, or at San Francisco,
in collecting freights beyond his pay as master of the vessel.
But I do not understand the agreement to have any thing to
do with the charge of primage. This is a matter between the
master and the owners of the merchandise shipped on board
the vessel. The word primage, says Abbott on Shipping, 492,
"denotes a small payment to the master for his care and trouble,
which he is to receive to bis own use, unless ho has otherwise
agreed with his owners." His agreement with. the complain-
ant, in this case, was, that they, master and owner, reciprocally
should make no charge, the one against the other, for services
in the home and foreign port, but it cannot be understood as
extending to a small compensation to the master for his care
and trouble bestowed upon the property of the shippers on
board the vessel with which the owner had no concern. The
master, to be sure, has no right to bring this charge into the
accounts between himself and the complainant, and if he has
done so, they must, in that respect, be corrected.
The opinion of the court is also asked touching the defend-
ant's right as master of the barque to charge for his pay as
such to the period of his return to Baltimore, and for his ex-
penses incurred in returning. The case of the master is unlike
that of the seaman. The latter, as a general rule, is entitled
to receive the whole of the stipulated reward for the entire in-
tended voyage, if he has faithfully performed his duty, and if
no disaster has rendered his services unproductive to his em-
ployer; but the rule, as a general thing, is inapplicable to the
situation and character of the master, and the act of congress
of the 28th of February, 1803, ch. 62, which, when the sea-
men are discharged abroad with their own consent, or the ship
is sold, provides that three months additional pay shall be
allowed, does not embrace the case of the master. Abbott on
Shipping, 619.
VOL. iv—32

  		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 381   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