Quirk v. Clinton
District Court, S.D. New York
This action was brought [by William Quirk against Peter Clinton] to recover damages for non-performance of an agreement of af-freightment.
Read the full summary
This action was brought [by William Quirk against Peter Clinton] to recover damages for non-performance of an agreement of af-freightment. The libellant wrote his broker at this place on the-to charter a vessel for him; and on the 7th of June, 1848, the broker made an agreement at this port with the respondent owner of the brig Growler to perform a voyage from Wilmington, N. C., to London, and carry a cargo of turpentine, freight 4/6 sterling per barrel for cargo under deck, and 3/6 for cargo on deck, with five per cent, primage. The vessel was to be dispatched from New York to Wilmington in…
1Opinion of the Court
BETTS, District Judge.
There is no ground to exclude the evidence of the broilers. The commissions they were to receive were not dependent upon the performance ■of the contract. They were earned, it is true, so soon as the bargain was made, and ■only upon the fact that the bargain had been made, but the result of this action in no way •determines their right to commissions, or supplies evidence upon which they can en-foi'ce a recovery of them. If both broker’s fire to be regarded as acting for the libellant, the customary commissions would be divided between them; but they would not be a…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Graham v. Oregon R. & Navigation Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1905