Ford v. Crocker
New York Supreme Court
THIS action was brought against the defendants, as owners of the American ship Forrest, for goods furnished to the ship, and money paid for premiums of insurance, in London, on the order of the captain.
Read the full summary
THIS action was brought against the defendants, as owners of the American ship Forrest, for goods furnished to the ship, and money paid for premiums of insurance, in London, on the order of the captain. Upon the trial, no direct proof was given that the articles furnished were necessaries, and the defendant requested the judge to charge the jury that in such a case it was incumbent on the plaintiff to prove that the articles furnished on such order were necessaries; and when the fact as to said articles being necessary was put in issue, the burden of proof was on the plaintiffs. The judge…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Ingraham, J.
I think there can be no doubt that under the decisions of the English courts, it is necessary to give some proof on the part of the plaintiff to show that the articles furnished were necessaries. The rule is stated by Abbott, when referring to Thacker v. Moates, (1 M. & Rob. 79,) to be that the creditor is required to prove the actual existence of the necessity for those things which give rise to the demand. The authority of the master is to provide necessaries. If, therefore, a person trust him for a thing not necessary, he trusts him for that which is not within…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Provost v. . PatchinNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
- Kenzel v. KirkNew York Supreme Court · 1861
- Flanders v. MerrittNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Kenzel v. KirkNew York Supreme Court · 1861
3Cited by4 opinions
- McCready v. . ThornNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Durando v. New York & Norwalk Steam-Boat Co.City of New York Municipal Court · 1889
- Daly v. MouroeCity of New York Municipal Court · 1885
- Vose v. . CockcroftNew York Court of Appeals · 1871