Birkbeck v. Tucker
The Superior Court of New York City
This was an action of assumpsit brought against the defendants as owners of the ship De Witt Clinton, to recover the amount of a bill for certain chains furnished for that vessel.—The defendant, Howland, severed from the other defendants, in his defence, appeared by a separate attorney and pleaded the general issue.—Morell was defaulted, but the other defendants appeared by the same attornies and made a joint defence.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit brought against the defendants as owners of the ship De Witt Clinton, to recover the amount of a bill for certain chains furnished for that vessel.—The defendant, Howland, severed from the other defendants, in his defence, appeared by a separate attorney and pleaded the general issue.—Morell was defaulted, but the other defendants appeared by the same attornies and made a joint defence. The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Oakley, and at the trial the plaintiff proved the delivery of the articles for which the action was brought, to the master of the vessel.…
1Per curiam
The principles upon which this case rests have already been considered and settled in the previous case of Ring and M’Namara v. Franklin. The defendant here, was a mortgagee out of possession, and his ownership had' never been the cause or inducement of the credit which was given by the plaintiff. This being his situation in point of fact, he cannot be made liable for supplies furnished to the ship when he was thus out of possession, provided his real interest in the vessel was established by competent proof.
Upon this point the law .seems to be well settled, that whenever there is a loan and…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Brainerd v. BrainerdSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1843
- Weber v. SampsonThe Superior Court of New York City · 1857
- Hill v. The Golden GateU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1857