Smith v. Barker
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut
THE declaration was as follows: “ That before the 8th , . day ot February, 1806, the plaintiff had entered into a certain contract with the defendant, to build him a ship, which, on said 8th day of February, was building, the same . , 1 ° not being finished; and the defendant, on said 8th day of February, in consideration of the plaintiff’s building said ship, and the sums which would become due to the ..... plaintiff for building said ship pursuant to said contract, and in…
Read the full summary
THE declaration was as follows: “ That before the 8th , . day ot February, 1806, the plaintiff had entered into a certain contract with the defendant, to build him a ship, which, on said 8th day of February, was building, the same . , 1 ° not being finished; and the defendant, on said 8th day of February, in consideration of the plaintiff’s building said ship, and the sums which would become due to the ..... plaintiff for building said ship pursuant to said contract, and in part payment thereof, made, executed and delivered to the plaintiff his certain writing, or note, in the following…
1Opinion of the CourtLivingston, J.
It is the opinion of the court, that the consideration alleged is so different from the one .proved, that we cannot let it go to the jury. The consideration alleged is the building of a ship. The consideration proved is the finishing of the ship Eliza, already built in part, and the selling it to the defendant. Every one knows that to build a ship for another is an essentially different thing from finishing one partly built, or selling one finished. This ship was Smith’s, while she was building, till she was finished, anil till she was sold and delivered. Without deciding any other points…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Stone v. LawrenceU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · 1830
- Smith v. WheelerSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1854