Hurry v. Hurry's Assignees
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania
Action [by Nicholas Hurry against the assignees of Samuel Hurry and G. W. Lawers-willer] for money had and received. The parties entered into the following agreement, which is filed: “The defendants admit the receipt of the proceeds of the John and Alice, and of the freights of said vessel, under charter party; but these admissions to have no other effect, than to entitle the parties to bring forward, in this form of action, the following questions: First, whether the…
Read the full summary
Action [by Nicholas Hurry against the assignees of Samuel Hurry and G. W. Lawers-willer] for money had and received. The parties entered into the following agreement, which is filed: “The defendants admit the receipt of the proceeds of the John and Alice, and of the freights of said vessel, under charter party; but these admissions to have no other effect, than to entitle the parties to bring forward, in this form of action, the following questions: First, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the whole, or to any, and what part of the proceeds of the sale of said ship; and, second, whether he…
1Opinion of the CourtWashington, Circuit Justice
(charging jury). It has been truly stated by the defendants’ counsel, and admitted by those of the plaintiff, that the advances made by the plaintiff were not such, nor were they made under such circumstances, as authorized the master to execute a bottomry bond for securing their payment. The only ground upon which it can be supported, is the power of attorney, provided it authorized the acts of the master in this case; if it did, though not good, as a maritime bottomry bond, it may create a lien on the vessel. By this power, the mas*1017ter was authorized to borrow any sum or sums of money, and…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Warren v. SkolfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870