Woodruff & Beach Iron Works v. Stetson
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit, for repairs made by the plaintiffs upon a vessel belonging to the defendants. The case was referred to auditors, whose report embraced the following facts :— The defendants, from the 1st day of January, 1857, to the 29th of August, 1857, were the owners of a steam propeller, called the “ H. B. Beach,” the defendants Stetson, Stroud, Loughead and Cushing being, during that time, partners under the name of D. S. Stetson & Co., and as such owning a three-eighths…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for repairs made by the plaintiffs upon a vessel belonging to the defendants. The case was referred to auditors, whose report embraced the following facts :— The defendants, from the 1st day of January, 1857, to the 29th of August, 1857, were the owners of a steam propeller, called the “ H. B. Beach,” the defendants Stetson, Stroud, Loughead and Cushing being, during that time, partners under the name of D. S. Stetson & Co., and as such owning a three-eighths interest in the vessel, and the remaining interest being owned in unequal shares by' the other defendants, Woodruff & Beach,…
1Opinion of the CourtDutton, J.
As it appears by the report of the auditors in this case, that the articles for which this suit was brought went into and became part of a vessel, a part of which was afterwards sold by a portion of the defendants, who received the avails, and the residue was used by the other defendants for more than a year before this action was commenced, it is not easy to see why a promise to pay for them was not found as a fact, relieving the case from any question of law as to the right of the plaintiffs to recover. The non-assent of some of *61the part owners of the vessel to the particular way in which…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Ben Franklin Insurance v. GillettCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1880
- Mitchell v. ChambersMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
- Pentz v. ClarkeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1875