on August 21, Judge Milton D. Purdy gave judgment in the claim for G$10,458.99 brought against The Shanghai Building Ca. Fed Inc., BSA, by Messrs, Grant Smith Giving judgment, Judge Purdy bai 'Th the year 1925, and for sometime: prior to that' year, the defendant, an American corporation with headquarters in Shanghai, was engaged in the business' of manufacturing and buying lumber on the west coast of the United States anti exporting the same to Shanghai. In the month of July, 1925, defendant engaged the services of one W. J. Merrick, a resident of the State of Oregon, and made him its resident manager in the United 'States with offices and headquarters inthe city of Portland. On Septem-Ber 5, 1026, defendant, through its said manager, W. J. Merrick, entered' into-a contract of affreightment with a corporation known as the Oregon Fix Inc. under the terms of which defendant chartered the schooner. Oregon Fir for the purpose of transporting lumber from the west coast of the United States to Shanghai, China, That contract contains the usual provisions incident to contracts of affreightment, and bound: the defendant, as the charterer, to' pay certain sums of money for the use of the vessel, the wages of the master, officers and seamen, together with' all costs and charges of towage, ete. The ship made one voyage from Portland to Shanghai under this contract and in the summer of 1926 a second voyage was begun, as the contract provided for a second and: third voyage at the option of the charter party. When the ship left Shanghai in the latter part of October, 1926, on its return second voyage one Edward Bell, who was then and subsequently the secretary and general-manager of the defendant company, gave the master instruc-ions in writing as to his destination and future business.
"On December 1, 1926, and while the schooner was on the high seas on her return to Auierica, the firm Oregon Fir Inc. by its president, W. B. Barrett, duly assigned all its right, title and interest in the account then due or to become due from the defendants to the plaintiffs. The master and crew of the ship were paid off on January 20, 1927, and the payroll amounted to $5,115.09, which was provided by the plaintiffs, at the request of the defendant's manager, W. J. Merrick. Further, in January, 1927, the Vancouver Dry Dock & 8. Ca,, rendered services of some sort in searching for the Oregon Fir and in towing the ship into the pprt of Astoria, "which service was paid for the plaintiffs.
"On January 31, 1927, the said W. J. Merrick as manager of the defendants and individually entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs for the purpose of adjusting and settling the various claims -which were then outstanding against the defendants in favour of the Oregon Fir Ca, Inc. In arriving at the terms which should be incorporated in such contract of settlement W. J. Merrick, as the manager of. the defendants,' was confronted with these facts:
Fir Inc, on Decembs its right, title, and me signed to the. plain in and' to. ihe contract of aifreightment of September or that jer the contract of int amounting 10 the om re pai had advanced at the id. Merrick for and om nce and. roque of
the 4) An unliquidated services Uhad arisen in favour Ltd,, which claim' was disputed." "It was in these circumstances and confronted by this situation as the agent of the and individually, because he was a guarantor of the tact of affreightment made and entered into the contract of January 31, 1927, obligating his company to pay $1,560 as rental of the ship, and $5,115.09 for monies advanced in payment of the wages of the master and crew. And being of the opinion that the defendants were also liable for the payment of services which had already been rendered by the Vancouver Dry Dock & S. Ca, Ltd, in towing the ip into the port of Astoria he also stipulated that such charges when ascertained should be paid by the defendants. These towing charges were not actually determin. ed until a judgment was recovered by the Vancouver Dry Dock & S. Ca., Ltd, against the plaintiffs on September 16, 1929, and which was finally paid and satisfied by them on September 24, 1929, in the sum of $1,852.20. The question is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover against the defendants these various sums of money and interest thereon in an action based upon the contract of January 31, 1927.
"I find little or no difficulty in reaching the conclusion from the evidence in this case that W. J.
Merrick was the duly appointed and acting manager of the defendants at the time of the execution of the contract....As conclusions of law from the findings of fact herein Contained I hold that the plaintiff?
entitled to recover from the defendants the following sums of money:
1) The sum of $1,550 for rental the shi frou Esreat at 6 per cout Hoo Jamas
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.