Macfarlane v. Gilmore
Hawaii Supreme Court
This was an action brought to recover $900 and interest, on a contract. It appealed that in December last the plaintiff entered into a written agreement with the defendant for the sale of the schooner “ Snake.” Macfarlane wrote out the agreement, binding h mself to sell the vessel to Gilmore, and deliver the same on the morrow or whenever it might suit the defendant.
Read the full summary
This was an action brought to recover $900 and interest, on a contract. It appealed that in December last the plaintiff entered into a written agreement with the defendant for the sale of the schooner “ Snake.” Macfarlane wrote out the agreement, binding h mself to sell the vessel to Gilmore, and deliver the same on the morrow or whenever it might suit the defendant. Gilmore wrote across the face of the wiiting, “I hereby bind myself to stand by this agreement,” and signed the same. Afterwards he procured the signature of F. It. Vida under that of his own. The next day the “ Snake” was…
1Opinion of the Court
Chief Justice Lee,
after summing up the facts, charged the jury that the plaintiff could not sustain his action against Gilmore alone. It must be brought against Gilmore and Vida jointly, they being joint and not several contractors. Secondly, the contract is executory, and the plaintiff cannot recover the purchase money for the vessel, until he has first tendered to Gilmore and Vida a good and sufficient bill of sale. The general maritime law requires such a bill, as the proper muniment of the title of the vessel.
The jury returned their verdict in favor of the defendant.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Covington v. AndersonTennessee Supreme Court · 1886