Gardner v. Tyler
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment. ' This action was by John Gardner and Charles Coleman against Daniel Tyler and John J. Boyd, to recover $19,649.85. In February, 1856, the plaintiffs filed their libel in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Sew York, against the bark “ White Squall,” her tackle, &c., alleging that they were the owners of a bottomry bond upon this vessel,. executed by the master thereof at Rio de Janeiro, which port she had entered in…
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment. ' This action was by John Gardner and Charles Coleman against Daniel Tyler and John J. Boyd, to recover $19,649.85. In February, 1856, the plaintiffs filed their libel in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Sew York, against the bark “ White Squall,” her tackle, &c., alleging that they were the owners of a bottomry bond upon this vessel,. executed by the master thereof at Rio de Janeiro, which port she had entered in distress, amounting to $12,796.10 of principal, and $3,199.02 for maritime interest, amounting to the sum of $15,995.12, and…
1Opinion of the CourtSutherland, P. J.
If the defendant Tyler did not execute the bond, nor authorize its execution by Barnard, certainly the *21TJ. S. District Court had no jurisdiction to render the decree in personam against Tyler founded on the hond.
The bond purported to have been executed by Barnard as attorney for Tyler; and the court must be presumed to have made the decree in personam, on the assumption that Barnard had been duly authorized to execute the bond for Tyler; but on the trial of this action, which was an action on the said decree or judgment in personam, the defendant Tyler offered to prove that he never executed…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Starbuck v. MurrayNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Dobson v. . PearceNew York Court of Appeals · 1854
- Noyes v. ButlerNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- People ex rel. Board of Supervisors of Westchester County v. FowlerNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
3Cited by1 opinion
- People v. DiedrichIllinois Supreme Court · 1892