¶1We are all of opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover their proportion of the hire during the whole voyage. The defendant might have employed the vessel in the coasting trade during the continuance of the embargo. But separately from this consideration, parties must be bound by their contracts, if they will not provide against contingencies, as they may, and as the defendant did in this case as to other contingencies.
7 Mass. 436
Minot v. Durant
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided May 15, 1811
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1811-05-15
This was an action of covenant broken, brought by the plaintiffs, as administrators of the goods and estate of Thomas Minot, deceased, upon a charter-party of affreightment, dated the 3d of November, 1807, whereby the defendant hired of the said Thomas and others the brig Fortitude, on a voyage from Portland to St. Croix and back to the United States, thence to St. Croix and back to the United States twice.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1991
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1811-05-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →