History
  • No items yet
midpage
Mayo v. Harding
6 Mass. 300
Mass.
1810
Check Treatment
Curia.

We have heard the counsel for the defendant, and, being satisfied as to the law, a delay in giving our opinion might have an ill effect on contracts by shipping-papers, if such delay should be supposed to arise from any doubt in our minds.

We are clearly of opinion that the objection of the defendant cannot prevail. It is not uncommon for seamen to be shipped by the owner before the master is appointed, and the seamen sign the paper, with a blank left for the name of the master. And it must be understood that the seamen thus signing consent to go the voyage with any master the owner shall appoint, and that the blank be filled with the name of such master when appointed. When the master is appointed, and signs the shipping-paper, the blank being filled with his name, it is an engagement, on his part, to consider the crew already shipped as his crew, and a confirmation of the conduct of the owner in shipping them, as the act of his agent. Each seaman may, therefore, lawfully consider such master as contracting to pay him his wages, in the same manner, and upon the same terms and conditions, as if he had in fact been the master when the seamen were shipped.

Upon these principles, we are satisfied that the verdict is right, and the plaintiff must have judgment.

Case Details

Case Name: Mayo v. Harding
Court Name: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Date Published: Mar 15, 1810
Citation: 6 Mass. 300
Court Abbreviation: Mass.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.