¶1after hearing Ward, for the defendants, and Cross, for the plaintiff, determined that defendants should have the benefit of a new trial, on the ground that many of the articles appeared to be luxuries, and not necessaries; and that the amount of the supplies-was extravagant and unreasonable. Some of the judges were of opinion the general rule does not authorize masters in the porff where the owner resides, to bind the owner for necessaries.
4 S.C.L. 449
Pratt v. Tunno
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided January 15, 1811
Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1811-01-15
Assumpsit to recover the amount of cer. tain groceries supplied by the plaintiff to the master of a brig he-longing to defendants, tried before Brkvaiíd, J., in Charleston, in which the plaintiff obtained a verdict. The plaintiff had been accus. tomed to furnish supplies necessary for the use of defendants’ vessels in the port of Charleston ; but the defendants had usually sent a clerk to direct the delivery of the articles.
Decided 1811-01-15