Haney v. The Schooner Rosabelle
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County. Action under cli. 151, Laws of 1859, to enforce a lien against tbe schooner Rosabelle, her apparel and furniture, for the price of certain spikes, iron &c. furnished to one Boole for, and used in building and equipping, said vessel.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County. Action under cli. 151, Laws of 1859, to enforce a lien against tbe schooner Rosabelle, her apparel and furniture, for the price of certain spikes, iron &c. furnished to one Boole for, and used in building and equipping, said vessel. The complaint alleges that said Boole, at the time said articles were purchased, was the agent of said vessel, and was duly authorized to purchase the material and contract the debt on her account. Orvis French and John Miller, as owners, answered denying that Boole was the agent of said vessel, or had any…
1Opinion of the CourtDixon, C. J.
We adopt the doctrine of Andrews v. Durant, 11 N. Y., 35, and Low v. Austin, 20 N. Y., 181, in opposition to the modern English rule, and hold, in the absence of any specific and clear agreement to the contrary, that under a contract for the building of a vessel, no property vests in the person for whom it is agreed to be built, until it is finished and delivered. In this case there .was no special agreement by which the title was to vest in French and Miller, the parties for *250wbom the vessel was built, before it was completed and delivered. It was but the ordinary contract for the building of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Andrews v. . DurantNew York Court of Appeals · 1854
- Low v. . AustinNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
3Cited by4 opinions
- Haynes v. Kenosha Electric Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
- Hubbard v. HaleyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- Territory of New Mexico v. HeacockNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1889
- Territory v. HeacockNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1889