Porteous v. . Williams
New York Court of Appeals
' Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of ¡New York, entered upon an order made June 7, 1887, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendants, entered upon an order nonsuiting plaintiffs on trial. The nature of the action and the material facts are stated in the opinion. If diligence is proved, but delay results from perils and dangers of navigation, the charterers are still bound by their contract.
Read the full summary
' Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of ¡New York, entered upon an order made June 7, 1887, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendants, entered upon an order nonsuiting plaintiffs on trial. The nature of the action and the material facts are stated in the opinion. If diligence is proved, but delay results from perils and dangers of navigation, the charterers are still bound by their contract. (Lovell v. Davis, 101 U. S. 541; Fearing v. Cheesman, 3 Cliff. 91; Hall v. Hurlbut, Taney’s Dec. 589.) “ That the ship * * * shall, with all convenient…
1Opinion of the CourtDanforth, J.
The plaintiffs sued to recover $1,452.66, that sum being, as alleged, their loss in consequence of the refusal of the defendants to load the steamship “ Limosa,” under a charter-party dated at Charleston, S. 0., March 20, 1882. The plaintiff was nonsuited. Among other grounds presented by the defendants to sustain that ruling is :
First. That the charter-party was canceled. Upon that question there is, as it seems to us, room for a difference of opinion. The charter-party recites that the vessel “ is due at New York with a cargo on or about 25 th inst., meaning March 25, 1882 ; that the said…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lowber v. BangsSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
3Cited by1 opinion
- The HerculesDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia · 1904