Peisch v. Dickson
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts
Assumpsit to recover of the defendant, a merchant of Gottenburgh in Sweden, a balance alleged to be due on sundry consignments made to him by the plaintiff. The defendant claimed to be allowed in account the difference, (being 6180 rix dollars,) between a sum advanced by him to the plaintiff’s supercargo, upon certain goods shipped by the Dolphin, and the net proceeds of those goods.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit to recover of the defendant, a merchant of Gottenburgh in Sweden, a balance alleged to be due on sundry consignments made to him by the plaintiff. The defendant claimed to be allowed in account the difference, (being 6180 rix dollars,) between a sum advanced by him to the plaintiff’s supercargo, upon certain goods shipped by the Dolphin, and the net proceeds of those goods. The plaintiff, on the other hand, contended that the defendant, by the contract made between him and the supercargo, had agreed to look to the goods only for his reimbursement. The instrument relied on to prove…
1Opinion of the Court
STORY, Circuit Justice.
It is not very easy to reconcile all the decisions upon the subject of latent and patent ambiguities; and, after several efforts, I have found myself unsuccessful in every attempt to accomplish it Nothing is clearer than the general rule, — latent ambiguities may be removed by parol evidence, for they arise from the proof of facts aliunde; and where the doubt is created by parol evidence, it is reasonable, that it should be removed in the same manner. But patent ambiguities exist in the contract itself; and if the language be too doubtful for any settled construction,…
2Cited by26 opinions
- Harney v. WirtzNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1915
- Marshall v. HaneyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1853
- Thompson v. SloanNew York Supreme Court · 1840
- Kollock v. JacksonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1848
- Mobile County v. LinchSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.