
    William Boardman, Respondent, v. Joseph Gaillard, Jr., et al., Appellants.
    (Argued February 3, 1875;
    decided February 16, 1875.)
    "Where one of two or more joint owner's of a vessel insures the same in mutual companies in his own name, for the benefit of all, charging the premiums advanced to the joint account, and subsequently receives, as his portion of the profits, “ dividend scrip ” issued by the companies, he is not entitled to retain the same, but each owner is entitled to a share, in the same proportion as he paid toward the original premiums.
    A party who, upon the receipt of a sum of money, supposing he is simply receipting therefor, .signs without reading it a receipt in full of all accounts, is not concluded thereby from recovering any other sum due him,
    This action was brought for an accounting and payment of a portion of the avails of certain “ dividend scrip ” issued to the defendants as insurers of the steamship Mary A. Board-man, by certain mutual insurance companies. (Reported below, 1 Hun, 217; 3 N. T. S. 0. [T. & 0.], 695.)
    From August 7,1862, to June, 1865, the parties owned the steamer, plaintiff owning four-fifths, and defendants owning one-fifth. The title was in defendant Graillard, as security for advances. Defendants managed the steamer, insuring her for the benefit of the owners, and charged plaintiff with four-fifths of the original premiums paid, together with a commission; they received back, under the name of profits, the scrip in question, from which they realized $8,788.69, no part of which was credited or paid to the plaintiff. Held, that plaintiff was entitled to four-fifths of the avails of the scrip. (M. C. R. R. Co. v. Morgan, 52 Barb., 217.)
    After the sale of the steamer, the defendants’ accounts showed a balance due plaintiff of $76.35 ; this was paid to him by defendants’ clerk. Plaintiff at the time signed a receipt therefor, which, by its terms, was in full of all accounts. The referee found that there was no final settlement ; that the receipt was signed without its being read to or by plaintiff, and without any intention on his part to discharge any claim to the scrip, and upon the supposition that it was simply an acknowledgment for the money actually paid. Held, that plaintiff was not concluded by the receipt, or estopped from recovering his share of the avails of the scrip.
    Samuel Hand for the appellants.
    George H. Foster for the respondent.
   Andrews, J.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur

Judgement affirmed  