Morgan's Assignees v. Shinn
Supreme Court of the United States
Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia; the ease being thus: The assignees of Morgan, Rhinehart & Co. filed a bill in the court below against one Shinn, to enforce contribution to the repayment of advances made by their assignors for the repairs and expenses of a steamer called the Fairfax; the bill averring that Shinn was owner of one-fourth part of the vessel, and Shinn by his answer denying this averment of his ownership, and asserting a mere interest…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia; the ease being thus: The assignees of Morgan, Rhinehart & Co. filed a bill in the court below against one Shinn, to enforce contribution to the repayment of advances made by their assignors for the repairs and expenses of a steamer called the Fairfax; the bill averring that Shinn was owner of one-fourth part of the vessel, and Shinn by his answer denying this averment of his ownership, and asserting a mere interest as mortgagee. The question of fact, and one preliminary to any other question, therefore, was, whether Shinn was in fact…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Strong
We think the averment of the answer that the bill of sale was intended by the parties to be only a security, is sufficiently proved. The testimony of Shinn himself is positive. It is confirmed by that of the scrivener, and the testimony of both is entirely uncontradicted. The fact that a power of attorney was given at the same time with the bill is also significant. Why empower Shinn to collect money •which might become due to him in the District of Columbia, and to attend to his interests, if Kelly then parted with all his ownership in the vessel? There is no evidence that he had any other…
2Cited by29 opinions
- American Car & Foundry Co. v. BrassertSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Fitzgerald v. A. L. Burbank & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1971
- Collins v. CollinsArizona Supreme Court · 1935
- Hobbs v. RowlandCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1909
- In Re SachsCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1929
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.