Phillips v. Wright
The Superior Court of New York City
. This was an appeal, by the defendants, from a judgment for the plaintiffs, rendered at a special term, upon the report of a referee.
Read the full summary
. This was an appeal, by the defendants, from a judgment for the plaintiffs, rendered at a special term, upon the report of a referee. The action was for a breach of the condition of a bond, given by the defendants to the plaintiff, in order to discharge an unnamed and unfinished ship or vessel, from a warrant of attachment, issued undér the provisions of the revised statutes (2 R. S. part 3, chap. 8, title 8). The breach assigned, was that the defendants had refused to pay certain debts due to the plaintiff, which were a subsisting lien upon the vessel, when the attachment was issued. The…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Sandford, J.
The proof that Bishop & Simonson built the vessel, established presumptively the fact, that they were her owners. The evidence that she was built by them, for the Mechanics’ Mining Association, under a contract, does not go far enough to rebut the presumption thus established. In the cases cited on this point, the contracts were produced, and the payments made from time to time to the builder, were fully shown. There is nothing in the evidence before us incompatible with the idea that Bishop & Simonson were to continue the owners of the hull of this vessel, until…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Rittenhouse & Embree Co. v. F. E. Brown & Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1912
- Phœnix Iron Co. v. Vessels " Hopatcong " & " Musconetcong"New York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Raeder v. BensbergMissouri Court of Appeals · 1879
- Myles v. The James H. PrenticeDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1888
- Ames v. DyerSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1856
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.