
    Francis Andre against Philip Care. Etienne Malespine against Same. Xoux de Souche against Same.
    A ship's agent in a foreign port, witness to prove the shippers of the goods.
    Where French property has been covered in an American bottom, without the knowledge of the captain or his owner, but with the assent of the ship’s agent, the party is entitled to the net proceeds of the sales of the property.
    These suits were brought for the proceeds of certain goods shipped by the plaintiffs respectively, at Port de Paix, in the schooner Mary, owned by the defendant, whereof Samuel Cas-son was commander, who arrived in Philadelphia on the 15th July 1796. The .schooner was addressed to care of Anthony Lamaliere, at Port de Paix; who, not being able to procure a full freight for her back to Philadelphia, obtained sundry sugars and coffee from the plaintiffs on freight, for which the captain gave his receipt. But in order to cover and secure the property, and induce the captain to believe that the same belonged to his owner, the different hogsheads and casks were marked P. C., and this was proved to be the usage of the island of St. Domingo, when French property was intended to be covered in American bottoms.
    To prove these different facts, the deposition of Lamaliere, the schooner’s agent, was offered in evidence, but the same was objected to by the defendant’s counsel. They contended, that though in common cases a factor was a witness, yet £ere¿3Íel bes ing responsible to the plaintiffs severally, ought to have had their releases.
    The plaintiffs answered: Lamaliere acted as agent of the schooner or owner. He is not even concerned in the question trying, nor can these verdicts be given in evidence either for or against him, in any other suits.
    
      Per cur. A factor or agent is a witness to prove a sale of goods for his principal; (i Atky. 47. 3 Wils. 40. 3 Term Rep. 27. 2 Dali. 301) even though he is to have for himself what- * 1 *ever money he can procure for them for himself, be-°i yond a certain sum. 2 H. Bla. 520. A porter, for the sake of trade, may prove the delivery of goods; (Bull. Ni. Pri. 284, 4th ed.) and the ship’s agent is surely as little exceptionable as the porter.
    The defendant resisted the demands of the plaintiffs, on the ground, that the sugars and coffee had been shipped by one Peter Changeur, who was indebted to him largely, and that he had applied the monies arising from the sales to the discharge of his own demand. But the facts, on the evidence, appeared to be clearly otherwise.
    The counsel for the defendant, then urged, that the plaintiffs were only entitled to the prime cost of the goods, and not to the profits arising on the sales thereof here, the same being covered French property, without the knowledge of the defendant or his captain, which might have subjected the schooner to capture by the British.
    Messrs. Ingersoll and Du Ponceau, pro quer.
    
    Messrs. Rawle and Hallowell, pro def.
    
   By the Court.

There is no colour for the defendant receiving these profits. The goods were shipped with the knowledge of schooner’s agent, and conformably to the usage of the port. The plaintiffs are entitled to the nett proceeds and interest; at least, from the time of commencing their different actions.

Verdicts for the plaintiffs accordingly.  