Greeley v. Waterhouse
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
This was replevin for the brig Albert and for two thirds of the brig Watson. It appeared in evidence, that Luther Jewett, prior to Oct. 26, ] 839, was indebted to the plaintiffs 1 o an amount exceeding seven thousand dollars, for advances by them made to him ; that on that day he executed, at Portland, in pursuance of the request of the plaintiffs, in their letters previous to that date, bottomry bonds of the brig Albert and of two thirds of the brig Watson, which bonds he…
Read the full summary
This was replevin for the brig Albert and for two thirds of the brig Watson. It appeared in evidence, that Luther Jewett, prior to Oct. 26, ] 839, was indebted to the plaintiffs 1 o an amount exceeding seven thousand dollars, for advances by them made to him ; that on that day he executed, at Portland, in pursuance of the request of the plaintiffs, in their letters previous to that date, bottomry bonds of the brig Albert and of two thirds of the brig Watson, which bonds he transmitted by letter, dated Oct. 28, 1839, to the plaintiffs who were merchants residing at Boston. The plaintiffs…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was by
Weston C. J.
The plaintiffs, as acceptors, having paid the bills, indorsed by George Jewett, he had no remaining interest or liability in relation to them, and was clearly a competent witness. And the interest of Luther Jewett is balanced in the case, it being a contest between bona fide creditors of his for security. The objection made at the trial to the testimony cannot prevail, and is not pressed by the counsel for the defendant.
The doctrine in relation to bottomry and respondentia bonds is very elaborately considered and exhausted by Mr. Justice *14Story in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Conard v. Atlantic Ins. Co. of NYSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
3Cited by1 opinion
- Greely v. SmithU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · 1847