Barge No. 6

U.S. Circuit Court

Barge No. 6

8 F. 48, 1881 U.S. App. LEXIS 2318

DecidedJuly 5, 1881

StatusPublished

This text of 8 F. 48 (Barge No. 6) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barge No. 6, 8 F. 48, 1881 U.S. App. LEXIS 2318 (uscirct 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

McKennaN, C. J.

The libellant is entitled to the relief which he seeks, if the bill of sale signed by him of date March 20, 1880, is not valid and binding upon him. While he admits the signing of it, he denies that he was acquainted with or informed of its contents, and.says liis execution of the paper was procured deceptively and fraudulently. If this be so, the bill would be totally ineffective as a transfer of the ownership of the vessel, whose possession he now seeks td recover. While the proofs are conflicting, the prejjonderance is in favor of libellant’s hypothesis, that the bill of sale is invalid because of the circumstances touching the execution of it, and the subsequent use of it, not contemplated or intended by both the parties when it was signed. The opinion of the learned judge in the court below, sufficiently indicates the reason for such a conclusion, and it is not necessary td collate and discuss the evidence to show that such a conclusion of fact is maintainable.

The libellant is entitled to a decree for the delivery of the vessel, etc., to him, and for the payment of the agreed amount of damages, to wit, $275, and costs, and a decree will be entered accordingly.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

McKennaN, C. J.

The libellant is entitled to the relief which he seeks, if the bill of sale signed by him of date March 20, 1880, is not valid and binding upon him. While he admits the signing of it, he denies that he was acquainted with or informed of its contents, and.says liis execution of the paper was procured deceptively and fraudulently. If this be so, the bill would be totally ineffective as a transfer of the ownership of the vessel, whose possession he now seeks td recover. While the proofs are conflicting, the prejjonderance is in favor of libellant’s hypothesis, that the bill of sale is invalid because of the circumstances touching the execution of it, and the subsequent use of it, not contemplated or intended by both the parties when it was signed. The opinion of the learned judge in the court below, sufficiently indicates the reason for such a conclusion, and it is not necessary td collate and discuss the evidence to show that such a conclusion of fact is maintainable.

The libellant is entitled to a decree for the delivery of the vessel, etc., to him, and for the payment of the agreed amount of damages, to wit, $275, and costs, and a decree will be entered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 F. 48, 1881 U.S. App. LEXIS 2318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barge-no-6-uscirct-1881.