Fickett v. Swift
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Exceptions from Nisi Prim, Howard, J. presiding. Assumpsit, to recover a balance claimed to be due tbe plaintiff from tbe defendant as part owner of tbe ship Knickerbocker. Tbe facts sufficiently appear in tbe opinion of tbe Court.
Read the full summary
On Exceptions from Nisi Prim, Howard, J. presiding. Assumpsit, to recover a balance claimed to be due tbe plaintiff from tbe defendant as part owner of tbe ship Knickerbocker. Tbe facts sufficiently appear in tbe opinion of tbe Court. The nonsuit was rightly ordered, because:— 1. From the evidence, no contract ever existed between the plaintiff and defendant. 2. If any contract existed on the part of tbe defendant to pay the claim of the plaintiff, it was a contract to pay the debt of another, and not being in writing is therefore invalid. R. S., c. 136, § 1. 3. The purchaser or mortgagee of…
1Opinion of the CourtCutting, J.
The plaintiff claims a balance to be due him “on account of blocking the defendant’s ship.”
It appears from the testimony of George W. Cutter, that he was engaged by the owners to superintend the building of the ship in 1853 and 1854; that her keel was laid in June of the former, but the vessel was not completed until the latter year, and after her arrival in New York; that Ambrose Scammon & Co. commenced building, who hypothecated her to the defendant in July, 1853, and in November of that year, transferred one half to the defendant and one George H. Blanchard, and in January, 1854, the other…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hallidie v. Sutter Street RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- Pitkin v. NoyesSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1869
- Greenbaum v. SternWashington Supreme Court · 1916