Stilk v Myrick

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns an action brought by the Plaintiff for seaman's wages related to a voyage from The City to the Baltic and back. The Plaintiff's contract, executed before the voyage commenced, fixed wages at a rate of 5 per month. During the voyage, two crew members deserted, and the captain, unable to replace them at Cronstadt, entered into an agreement with the remaining crew that they would share the wages of the deserters equally if no replacements were found at Gottenburgh. Replacement was impossible, and the ship was returned to The City with the Plaintiff and eight other original crew members who had agreed to the arrangement. The key issue was whether the Plaintiff was entitled to wages at a higher rate than originally contracted.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to receive a higher rate of wages than that specified in the original contract due to the agreement made at Cronstadt.
2. Whether the agreement made at Cronstadt was valid and enforceable or void for reasons such as public policy or lack of consideration.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

• The agreement to pay higher wages was contrary to public policy and therefore void.
• In voyages such as those to the West Indies, crew reduction due to death or desertion is common, and allowing promises of extra wages would encourage exorbitant claims.
• Relied on the precedent set in Harris v. Watson, where it was held that no action lies on a captain's promise to pay extra wages for performing more than ordinary duties, to avoid sailors forcing captains into unreasonable demands under duress.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The present case differed from Harris v. Watson as the agreement was made on shore, in the absence of danger or emergency, and without constraint on the captain.
• The mariners should not be deprived of voluntary compensation offered in a secure context for their extra labour during the remainder of the voyage.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Harris v. Watson	No action lies for a captain's promise of extra wages for performing more than ordinary duties during emergencies; to prevent sailors from forcing captains into unreasonable demands.	The court acknowledged the correctness of this precedent but questioned whether public policy was the true basis. It distinguished the present case on the ground of lack of consideration rather than policy.
Yates v. Hall	A promise by a captain to pay monthly wages to a seaman for performing services beyond the original contract (e.g., becoming a hostage) is binding.	Referenced as an exception where extra service beyond the contract scope justifies additional wages, contrasting with the present case.
Anon. coram Lord Ellenborough, December 11th 1806	A seaman impressed into the Royal Navy is not entitled to wages beyond the point of leaving the merchant ship unless the voyage is completed.	Used to illustrate limits on wage entitlement during interrupted voyages, reinforcing that wages are tied to completion of contractual obligations.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court accepted the validity of Harris v. Watson but doubted that public policy was the correct foundation for that decision. Instead, the court found the agreement at Cronstadt void due to lack of consideration. The original contract obligated the crew to perform all duties throughout the voyage, including emergencies such as desertion. Since the crew had already sold their services for the entire voyage, no new consideration supported the promise of extra wages. The court reasoned that if the crew had been free to quit or the captain had discharged men arbitrarily, the situation would differ. However, desertion was considered an emergency covered by the original contract, binding the remaining crew to fulfill all duties without entitlement to additional pay. Therefore, the Plaintiff was only entitled to the originally agreed wage rate.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the agreement to pay additional wages was void for want of consideration, and the Plaintiff was entitled only to the original rate of 5 per month.

The decision directly affects the parties by denying the Plaintiff any increased wages beyond the original contract. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the ruling reaffirmed that contracts for extra wages require valid consideration beyond existing obligations.