The Frances
Supreme Court of the United States
IN this case further proof was ordered at the. last term. The property vested in Dunk am. and Randolph by the shipment. It was made in consequence' r»P, although not strictly in conformity with, their orders; and delivery .to the master of the vessel was tantamount to a delivery to themselves.
Read the full summary
IN this case further proof was ordered at the. last term. The property vested in Dunk am. and Randolph by the shipment. It was made in consequence' r»P, although not strictly in conformity with, their orders; and delivery .to the master of the vessel was tantamount to a delivery to themselves. The invoices and bills of lading ail stated the goods to be shipped on their account and risk, But if the property did not pass by the shipment, there, is no reason why it should not pass in transitu, so that it be before capture. It is true that it cannot vest in transitu so as to defeat a vested…
1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.
This claim is interposed to obtain restitution of three bales and nineteen boxes of goods captured in the Frances. As early as the 23d of July, 1811, these'Claimants, anticipating a repeal of the orders in council, give an order to Alexander Thompson of Glasgow, to ship them a variety of articles. In July, 1812, upon the repeal of the .orders in council, 1'hompson ships the articles ordered; and, originally intending to ship to the Claimants, a consignment on his own account, intermingles, with the goods ordered, a variety of others not contained in the order of the Claimants. These goods are…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Farmers and Mechanics' Nat. Bank v. . LoganNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Smith v. JaneyDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2009
- Southern Express Co. v. CraftMississippi Supreme Court · 1873
- State v. J. W. Kelly & Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1910
- A. C. & A. B. Treadwell & Co. v. Anglo-American Packing Co.United States Circuit Court · 1882
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.