Higgins v. Packard
The Superior Court of New York City
This is the same cause which was formerly before the court, upon a case made, [ante, p. 226.] The court on that occasion, gave judgment for the defendants, but, by an arrangement of the parties, it was again brought before the jury, and tried at the last July term before Mr. Justice Oakley. The evidence introduced at the second trial did not differ materially from that produced on the former occasion, and it is not therefore recapitulated here.
Read the full summary
This is the same cause which was formerly before the court, upon a case made, [ante, p. 226.] The court on that occasion, gave judgment for the defendants, but, by an arrangement of the parties, it was again brought before the jury, and tried at the last July term before Mr. Justice Oakley. The evidence introduced at the second trial did not differ materially from that produced on the former occasion, and it is not therefore recapitulated here. The Judge charged the jury that the written evidence of title, exhibited by the defendants, was not conclusive in the cause to fix the time when…
1Opinion of the Court
Oakley, J.T
his action was brought to recover of the defendant, Packard, as one of the owners of the ship Russell, the amount of a bill for rigging that vessel. The question whether Packard was interested in the ship at the time the work was done, was fairly left to the jury, and their verdict on that point must be conclusive ; and the more so, as it seems to me to be supported-by the weight of the evidence.
It appears, that after the work was performed, the plaintiff took the note of one of the owners of the ship for the amount, and it was contended at the trial, by the defendant, Packard,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Bank of St. Marys v. St. John, Powers & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1854
- Murray v. GouverneurNew York Supreme Court · 1800
- Bent v. LauveSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1848
- King v. LowryNew York Supreme Court · 1855