Souter v. Baymore
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1st error from the District Court of Philadelphia. March 16. Assumpsit for freight on wheat. Pleas. — Deviation, whereby the voyage was broken up: Deviation and overloading, whereby the wheat was injured: An agreement not to deceive other freight on board, and that other freight was received whereby a leak occurred, and the wheat was injured.
Read the full summary
1st error from the District Court of Philadelphia. March 16. Assumpsit for freight on wheat. Pleas. — Deviation, whereby the voyage was broken up: Deviation and overloading, whereby the wheat was injured: An agreement not to deceive other freight on board, and that other freight was received whereby a leak occurred, and the wheat was injured. On the trial there was evidence that the , plaintiff had agreed to carry certain wheat from the Rappahannock direct to Philadelphia; and that, without necessity, he had put into the Piankatank river, and taken on board a deck load of wood. On the voyage…
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
The plaintiff in error suggested two points for consideration. The first of these is, whether a conclusive effect is to ‘be ascribed to the decree pronouncfed in the admiralty, by which an allowance of the charge for freight claimed in this action was accorded to the defendant in error by way of set-off ? Though the affirmative of the proposition was argued with very considerable emphasis by the plaintiff here, no hesitancy is felt in resolving it negatively.
It is conceded, as an unquestionable rule, founded on public policy, that the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction on the same…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Yeaton and Others, of the Schooner General Pinkney and Cargo v. The United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1809
- Marsh v. PierSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1833
- The San PedroSupreme Court of the United States · 1817
- Stratton v. JarvisSupreme Court of the United States · 1834
- Hart v. Allen & GrantSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1833
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Shaffer v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
- In Re Clinton Centrifuge, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1987
- The IndrapuraDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1909
- Coppedge v. ClintonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1934
- Bailey, Jo Ellen v. Ness, J. Christian, Individually Garber, Daniel, Individually and Northern Regional Police DeptCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.