18 F. Cas. 734 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York | 1869
There is no doubt that the vessel was inpressed by the authorities, for the voyages to Key West, against the will and protest of the master, and without any fault on his part; and that, while thus engaged, she was under the control of the public authorities. This detention occasioned the delay complained of in the libel as an infraction of the charter-party.
In Mitchell v. Harmony, 13 How. [54 U. S.] 115, 134, Chief Justice Taney says: “There are, without doubt, occasions in which private property may lawfully be taken possession of or destroyed, to prevent it from falling into the hands of the public enemy; and, also, where a military officer, charged with a particular duty, may impress private property into the public service, or take it for public use. Unquestionably, in such cases, the government is bound to make full compensation to the owner; but the officer is not a trespasser.” He admits that, in all such cases, the danger must be immediate and impending, or the necessity urgent for the public service, and such as will not admit of delay. In that case, the court held, upon the testimony, which was undisputed, that, a case of danger or necessity, within the rule of law, had not been made out, and sustained the judgment for the plaintiff. The chief justice rurtner observes, that, in deciding upon the necessity, “the state of the facts, as they appeared to the officer at the time he acted, must govern the decision; for, he must necessarily act upon the information of others, as well as his own observation; and if, with such information as he had a right to rely upon, there is reasonable ground for believing that the peril is immediate and menacing, or the necessity urgent, he is justified in acting upon it, and the discovery afterwards that it was false or erroneous, will not make him a trespasser.” Within this principle, I am inclined to think, that, in the case now before us, the authorities at Fort Jefferson were' justified in impressing the vessel for the purposes and uses alleged. Something is due to the decision, made by these officers under the circumstances and relative situation and condition of the fort-remote from any supply of fresh water for the garrison, and dependent upon the article of ccal, as a necessary material in obtaining it. The officers may have erred, but. if their error was simply an error of judgment, on the facts as they appeared to them, they will still be justified.
It is argued, however, that, assuming this to be so, it constitutes no defence against delay in the voyage, in this case, as the carrier had expressly agreed in the charter-party, that he would proceed directly from the Tor-tugas, on discharging his cargo, to the port or ports of loading in Florida; and that, as he thus, in terms, covenanted to proceed directly. and without any delay, this forcible detention will not excuse him, within the rule laid down in Paradine v. Jane, Aleyn. 27, and that class of cases. In other words, it is claimed, that, if a party charge himself with an obligation possible to be performed, he must make it good, unless its performance is rendered impossible by the act of God, the law, or the other party. The law, however, is otherwise, if the obligation or duty is created by law.
It is supposed, by the counsel for the libel-lant, that, by the clause in the charter-party to which I have referred, there is an express and positive obligation entered into by the carrier, to proceed at once from the Tortugas, on unloading his outward cargo, to the port or ports in Florida, and that the only excuse for delay is to be found in the instances given in the case of Paradine v. Jane. I am of opinion that this is too narrow and strained a construction of the word “direct,” in the connection in which it is found; and that a plainer and more natural interpretation is. that that word is used to express, simply, the course of the voyage to be performed by the vessel, after arriving at the Tortugas. She was to go direct, that is, she was to take
It is insisted, however, that, admitting that the officers at the fort were justified in seizing the vessel, and that the party was disabled from performing his contract without any fault on his part, still, as he has a remedy over against the government, he is not exempt from responsibility for the delay. The answer is, that the remedy over is, within the contemplation of the rule in Paradine v. Jane, a legal remedy, which may be enforced in a court of justice.
Upon the interpretation thus given to the contract, the defence here is complete, even assuming that the officers of the fort were trespassers in seizing and detaining the vessel. Harmony v. Bingham, 2 Kern. 99; Parsons v. Hardy, 14 Wend. 215; Wibert v. New York & E. R. Co., 19 Barb. 36, 2 Kern. 245; Conger v. Hudson River R. Co., 6 Duer, 375.
Decree affirmed.
