BUBDtlTT 11. WILLLUfil.
tract for, wages and settlementsmade are subject to the supervision of the court, and it will not tolerate such practices. It is true allowances of grog are made for seamen, and we do not proceed upon any temperance the()ries of prohibition, as suggested by counsel j but these allowances are usually a part of the supplies furnisheq. to the seaman, like his food; and it is quite another thing to carry a bar, and tempt the improvident and intemperate seaman to indulge his appetite for the profit of the master, the owner, or the bar-keeper, to say nothing of the danger to safe navigation by such practices, and the morals of it. The court wHl protect the seaman, against the master and owners, from the reductioll of his wages, or their wasteful expenditure under such temptations. Only a re!Lsonableallowance can be credited, and I will credit that amount which this libelant has expressed a- willingness to allow, althoughl think that extravagant; but the proof is very unsatisfactory, and I do not know how otherwise to determine it. The claimant here was himself substantially the master, and the bar belonged to him. He had a traveling theater or variety show afloat with the boat, and the of the enterprise was calculated to allure thia already intemperate mate to indulge freely and waste his money. No court of admiralty should sanction such charges, and I am almost inclined to disallow them altogether; but forbear to go that far, as we are not engaged in any punishment or discipline of the master in this proceeding, but only in enforoing a contract between the parties.
(DiBtrict OO'UlT't, D. Oonnecticut. May 4, 1887.)
1n'Alft-CONTRACTS-AvOIDANCE-1rIISREPRESENTATION OF AGE-ESTOPPEL.
A minor's fraudulent misrepresentation to a shipping commissioner for a vessel that he is of age, does not estop him from avoiding his written contract for compensation, and recovering pay on 'a quantum meruit. l
IAn infant who secures and retains personal property of an adult, who has acted in good faith and exercised care and diligence, on a contract obtained by a false representation that he is of full age, is liable for the value of the property on account of his fraud. Rice v. Boyer, (Ind.) 9N. E. Rep. 420. In such a case, the fraud justifies the rescission of the sale; and ifthe infant has disposed of the goods, his vendor can replevy them, unless the infant's vendee can show that he was a bema fide purchaser. Neffv. Landis, (Pa.) 1 Atl. Rep. 177. But in an action in ihe nature of assumpsit to recover the value of goods, not necessaries, sold and delivered to an infant, he is not estopped to set up his infancy as a defense by the fact that, at the time of the sale, he represented himself to be of age, and the goods were sold to him on the faith of such representations. Conrad v. Lane. (Minn.) 4 N. W. Rep. 695. The officer taking the ment of a deed is not an agent of the vendee so as to render a representation in a mInor's presence to the officer taking the acknowledgment of a deed of which she was & grantor, that she is of age, the grantee not being present, a false representation of her age to the grantee, that will estop her from avoiding the contract and suing to set aside the deed; neither is there any presumption that the grantee took the prcperty on the implied representation that she was of age. Vogelsang v. Null, (Tex.) a S W. Rep. 451.
Four months after coming of age a minor flIed a petition to become co-libelant in a libel by certain seamen of a vessel, under their written contract for wages, in which petition nothing was said in regard to his minority. It appeared that he was neither intelligent nor provident. but that having heard that his associates had brought a suit for wall'es. obtained the services of the lawyer who was acting for the rest. Held, that there was not sufficient evidence of intelligent action to show a ratification of the contract.
Libel in personam to recover seamen's wages. E. L. Barney, for libelant. Samuel Pa1'k, for respondents.
SHIPMAN, J. Thomas J. Kelly, a seaman, filed his petition on February 10,1886, to become a co-libelant in the case. Burdett v. WiUiam8, 27 Fed. Rep. 113. On January 20, 1887', he amended his petition, and alleged that he was a minor when the shipping articles were signed, and when the voyage ended, and prayed for a reasonable compensation for his services. He was born October 8, 1864, and became of age four months before his original petition was filed. When he agreed to ship, he told the shipping commissioner in the city of New York that he was of age. He was on board the Era 1H months, and, if no contract had been made with the owners. wages at the rate of $18 per month would be proper compensation upon a quqntum meruit. He made no demand for wages at the end of the voyage. His fraudulent misrepresentation to the shipping commissioner does not estop him from avoiding his written contract in regard to compensation. Conroe v. Birdsall, 1 Johns. Cas. 127. I do not find that he affirmed the contract by his petition to become a co-libelant, which was filed four months after he became of age, and in which nothing was alleged in regard to his minority. He is not an intelligent or Ii provident person. He is a sailor who, having heard that his associates had brought a suit for wages, obtained the services of the same lawyer who was acting for the rest, and probably made no other statement of his case. In order to find a ratification within four months after a person had attained his majority, there should be more evidence of intelligent action than there is in this case. He is entitled to wages for 17 i months, at $18 per month. less the sum of $105.31 received by him from the Qwners, the balance being $209.67, with interest from January 20, -1887, and costs upon the amended petition from the same date. Gammell v. Skinner, 2 Gall. 45; Rensselae1' Glass Factory v. .Reid, 5 Cow. 587.
and others, Agents, v. ASHLEY PHOSPJIATE Co.
(District Court, &1I.th Carolina. March 81, 1887.)
An answer must admit or deny each allegation of the libel, in order that the libelant may know what issues he must meet. The omission to notice an allegation in the libel does not, as in code pleading. admit it. Exceptions should not be general. they should briefly, but clearly, specify by line and page the points excepted to.
In Admiralty. Libel in perB<l'7l.am for demurrage. Motion by libelants that the answer be amended. Bryan Bryan, for libelants. Hayne Ficken, for respondents.
SIMONTON, J. The libel set out in distinct articles the several facts upon which the libelant relied. The answer, following the form used in civil proceedings under the state Code of Procedure, ignored the allegations of the first and second articles of the libel. The libelant files his exceptions to the answer as incomplete, and not responsive. Our rule (No.1, district court) requires that the libel must state plainly the facts on which relief is sought. "The adverse party must understand what is the precise charge which he is required to answer, and make up an issue directly on the charge." Ben. Adm. § 372. For the same reason, the answer must admit or deny each allegation of the libel, in order that the libelant may know what issues he must meet. It is best to answer the articles in the order in which they are stated. The omission to notice an allegation of the libel does not, as in code pleading, admit it. The mode of exception to the form of allegations, either in the libel or in the answer, il:l regulated by our rule 41. "The exceptions shall briefly and clearly specify the parts excepted to by line and page of the papers in the clerk's office." A general exception as to form will not be allowed. The precedent suggested by Mr. Benedict (AdAl. 669) will be followed in this court. Let the anf:!wer be amended.
Reported by Theodore M. Etting, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.