¶1The case comes directly within the principle stated in Sears v. Wingate, 3 Allen, 103, and in Shepherd v. Naylor, 5 Gray, 592. Instead of having bought and paid for a larger quantity of coal than was delivered by the master, on the faith of the bill of lading which he signed, the plaintiffs gave a note as a part of the price after the deficiency was discovered ; and with an agreement with the shippers that they are not to pay for more than they received, unless they recover it of the master. In effect, this suit seems to be brought by the plaintiffs as the agents and for the benefit of the shippers, to recover of the master, who has faithfully carried all the coal he received on board, the value of some that was not shipped, and which he was induced to receipt for in the bill of lading by the misrepresentation of the shippers themselves. It also appears affirmatively, aside from the alleged usage of trade, that the master had not the means of knowing the weight of the coal when it was shipped. Exceptions overruled.
89 Mass. 454
Hall v. Mayo
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided November 15, 1863
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1863-11-15
Contract brought by the consignees of a cargo of coal against the master of the bark Hadley, alleging that the latter signed bills of lading for two hundred and eighty tons of coal, consigned to the plaintiffs from Baltimore, and that the plaintiffs had purchased and paid for that amount, but that the defendant had delivered to them only two hundred and sixty-five tons.
Decided 1863-11-15